Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oren0 (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 4 February 2008 (→‎Current requests for protection: Rock Band (video game)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Rock Band (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    semi-protection - High level of IP vandalism from multiple sources. Oren0 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of amendments to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Vandalism, Extensively vandalized mostly from schools, by primarily unregistered users (some accounts are participating). Article shouldn't change all that much, would probably be good to leave this protected for a while. .Triona (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Knut (polar bear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Suggesting semi-protection for a few hours. Earthbendingmaster 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    - auburnpilot talk 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church needs protection, as the Roman Catholic page has the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divius (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm seeing many constructive edits, and very few vandalism edits from IP editors. - auburnpilot talk 19:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    permanent semi-protection - because of the controversial subject matter, and most people's reaction to the KKK, this particular page had come in for a lot of unconstructive vandalism, much of it from non-registered editors. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Swalwell, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , Article should be reduced to semi-protection, no need for indef full protect on this article..Solumeiras (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected

    Joystiq podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    permanent full protection Article has been recreated several times in the past few days and each time speedied. User will not provide any context other than what has previously been speedied. Redfarmer (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Civil rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism.Earthbendingmaster 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -MBK004 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Webkinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-Protection The protection on the Webkinz page lifted 2 days ago and there has been constant vandalism since. This happens every time the protection lifts, maybe a permanent protection is needed? -- Atamachat 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of undefined time, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Siobhán Hoey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection. Edit war begun. Chris (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.

    Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism. Earthbendingmaster 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ChibiChibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. For all the articles you have nominated, some reverting has occurred, but not enough to justify protection. Please re-request protection if edit warring gets a lot worse on any of the articles. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess Kakyuu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Longer term semi-protection requested. High level of IP vandalism. The article was briefly semi-protected a few weeks ago, which helped, but the vandalism returned almost as soon as protection was lifted. It is now worse than ever. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Quite a lot of inappropriate IP editing, but not uncontrollable and there are unregistered users making constructive edits to the article. Re-request protection if vandalism gets any worse. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver Millennium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cats (Sailor Moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sailor Saturn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sailor Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary semi-protection , There is an Edit war started at the page..SMS Talk 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lowell High School (San Francisco) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    temporary full protection Dispute, edit warring.Zedla (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not yet out of control and seems to have calmed down, if it gets worse in the future re-request protection. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    unprotection, I'd really like to improve this article. Poole3001 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Swalwell, Alberta (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

    unprotection , No reason why a talk page should be protected indefinitely, especially for a stub article. As per the main article..Solumeiras (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Views of Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    unprotection , Should be safe to unprotect now.Solumeiras (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined as below. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    unprotection , Protected for too long, allow open editing again..Solumeiras (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined There are several Arbitration Committee cases on this page and the "Views of Lyndon LaRouche" page (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others); I'd discuss it with them first because the whole set of articles is a time bomb. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Template:User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    I'm working on cleaning up Wikipedia:Bots/Status. Some users who make bots are only active on other wikis (they might not even have accounts on English wiki). In order to make the table clean, with templates, I needed to add an interwiki parameter to Template:User. My changes to the code would not in any way affect any existing use of Template:User on any page, because it only generates something different if the template uses a third parameter (which no existing instances of Template:User would).

    An example of the code to be added is at Template:Usernewtest. Every line of code there is carefully commented, so that it's easy to follow even for non-programmers. Here's how it works. Say you have a user named Flacus with an account on English wiki and an account on German wiki.

    • The standard way of doing it is:

    {{User|Flacus}}
    This generates a link to his English wiki account, talkpage, and contribs list:
    Template:Usernewtest

    • A silly and redundant way of doing this would be:

    {{User|Flacus|en}}
    This generates:
    Template:Usernewtest

    • However, let's say Flacus has no account on English wiki, or his account on German wiki is more active. Someone could write:

    {{User|Flacus|de}}
    This generates the interwiki user template:
    Template:Usernewtest

    This works for all of the interwiki codes.

    To copy the code:

    1. Copy the stuff at Template:Usernewtest from my last revision.
    2. Add to the end of it: 
    
<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
{{template doc}}
</noinclude>

    Make sure you don't add the "pre" tags you only see if you edit this page. Also, the documentation (which is also locked) needs to be revised as well to account for this revision. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

    Template:Infobox Officeholder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    For some days now an edit request has been put on the Officeholder infobox. Other pages on Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests have come and gone, but Infobox Officeholder seems to have been ignored. There was only one objection on the template talk page and that was because the user misunderstood the proposed edit. The new code stops the word 'incumbent' from being put in the succession field, corrects a code error, adds a missing premier field, adds a new partner field, and puts a hyperlink on the alma mater field.  I've written the new code at User:Philip Stevens/Template:Infobox Officeholder. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    

    

    NCAA Division I-A national football championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    In the first paragraph of the "Rankings Overview" section there are several errors.  It states "The NCAA guide[1] lists 340 national championship selections in 137 seasons, an average of between two and three selections every year ever. On that list, Notre Dame is credited with 21 championships, Oklahoma and USC with 17, Alabama and Michigan with 16, Ohio State with 13, Nebraska and Pittsburgh with 11--an amount exceeding claims by almost any university."  

    Referencing the actual ncaa site for Past Division 1 Football National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) one can verify for themselves that Notre Dame is credited with 21, Alabama with 17, USC with 17, Oklahoma with 16, Michigan with 15, Ohio State with 14, Nebraska with 12 and Pittsburgh with 11.  

    In addition, the "Rankings Overview" section cites the College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW)(http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/index.php) as a reference for determining "the most acceptable selectors" and determining the national champions.  However, it goes on to list the Dickinson System, International News Service, Football Writers Association of America and the Harris Interactive Poll as acceptable selectors.  The CFDW does not recognize these selectors in determining their national champions.  In addition, this section also lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953,  the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1982.  The CFDW on the other hand only lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1869-1892, the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1919-1935 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1935.  Thus the CFDW does not recognize Notre Dame as champions in 1938, Alabama as champions in 1945, USC as champions in 1939 and Oklahoma as champions in 1953 and 1978.

    So according to the CFDW, in the "Most national championship" section, Notre Dame should have 12 recognized titles, Alabama should have 11 recognized titles (the CFDW includes 1934), USC should have 10 recognized titles and Oklahoma should have 7 recognized titles.  This would further change the "Most Poll Era National Championships" sections by giving Notre Dame - 9, Oklahoma - 7, USC - 7, and Alabama - 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cson37 (talk • contribs) 

    

     Unprotected - go forth and make the edits your own way. :-) east.718 at 08:12, February 1, 2008
    

    British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    The Entry for the 'British National Party' section 1.6 entitled '2007 split' is outdated. The group referred to as 'RealBNP' has become an internal democratic pressure group called 'Voice of Change'. This drive for democratic change to the party's constitution has growing support among the BNPs grassroots membership, and I would like to add this update plus a link to the Voice of Change pressure group into the British National Party's entry section 1.6.

    Web Refs: http://www.voiceofchange.org.uk/index.php http://enoughisenoughnick.blogspot.com/

    {[User:ChrisLhill]} chris@chrishill.freeserve.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.27.44 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    

     Declined This type of edit would require independent reliable sources. You might want to mention it on the article's talk page to gather consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Template:Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    Per request here. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Already done. -MBK004 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    Final reversion by Lawrence Cohen on 22 January was minutes before page was protected during edit war. Eschoir returned from 24 hour block for edit warring that morning and straightaway started edit war again. This time he recruited Lawrence Cohen from WP:RFAR. As shown on talk page final revert by Lawrence Cohen is not supported by consensus or by Wikipedia policy. Please restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined - see this for more information why. east.718 at 22:20, January 25, 2008
    

    Al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    In the article on al-Qaeda: I'd like to request that a separate level-2 heading be created to discuss the essential issue of al-Qaeda's numbers. Nowhere in the article, as currently protected, is there a systematic discussion of the number of operatives in the organization. From the text of the article as it currently stands, al-Qaeda could include tens of millions of operatives, or less than fifty. This needless, dangerous ambiguity to the article ought to be addressed and corrected forthwith.  --TallulahBelle (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined It needs to be addressed by editors on the talk page then. After consensus has been achieved, then you request an edit. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    User talk:Rodimus The F22 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    I'd like to request that someone remove the M1 Abrams message at the top, WP:DENY. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined It doesn't have anything to do with DENY from what I can see. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Medicine Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate.  I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected.  Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album).  I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Fulfilled/denied requests
    

    Template:Infobox Ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    Full protection, high risk template, transcluded in thousands of ship articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Fully protected ~ Riana ⁂ 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Pooper-scooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    semi-protect Vandalism, Repeated vandalisms from numerous users. Page has previously been protected. Please apply either indefinite partial protection or extended partial protection (30 days?). Thank you..Editortothemasses (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    Semi-protection until a section dispute is resolved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined Appears to have calmed down. If not, please request again, or report warring parties to WP:AN3. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Knut (polar bear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    unprotection , Today's featured article. .--EoL talk 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

    It's just move-protected, seems reasonable. Editing is allowed, there will be vandalism, etc. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Declined As per above. Jmlk17 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Gigi Leung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    temporary semi-protection Someone (People) keep(s) blanking out her page, or deletes part of it for no reason. Dengero (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Pergamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    temporary full protection Dispute, seems to be a problem on the name of the city so I think it should be protected until all sides come to an agreement on the talk page.Pewwer42  Talk  07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    User:Collectonian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Can my user page be given temporary protection?  Someone is vandalizing it repeatedly using random IPs..Collectonian (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Semi-protected Jmlk17 06:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    temporary semi-protection I'm requesting semi-protection for the article Codename: Kids Next Door because everyday the article has to be reverted due to unregistered users changing things or putting their own personal favorite things in the article for ex. who should date this person and stuff like that. Edits that are not helpful to the article at all. Thank You for your time.Mcelite (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 06:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Parents Television Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    Temporary semi-protection - Recent wave of IP vandalism that has increased over the past week. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    temporary semi-protection - continual vandalism by IPs to otherwise stable article. Time to let things calm down? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Semi-protected for 3 weeks.   jj137 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    

    There's no reason it should be moved, is there?   jj137 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think he's talking about vandals moving it, but it's an autoconfirmed thing so move protection would probably be unnecessary, unless there's been a problem before. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The vandalism is from IP's, correct? They cannot move a page anyway, it just seemed unnecessary to me, but it is fine. Cheers to everyone. Earthbendingmaster 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Super Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    semi-protection because it is recent news.

    

     Already protected. --slakr\ talk / 03:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    


    

    

    Knut (polar bear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    semi-protection Yes, it's the FA, but it is getting beat up badly. Semi-protection was applied earlier and removed without explanation. Horologium (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Declined; the level of vandalism is similar to past main page FA's. —Kurykh 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    User:Earthbendingmaster/Welcome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    

    indefinite semi-protection and move protection , My welcoming I transclude onto new user talk pages.Earthbendingmaster 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Semi-protected indefinitely. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I added move protection.   jj137 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 02:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

    Tuxedo Mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    

    full protection Dispute, There is an edit war started on the page..SMS  Talk 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

     Fully protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. due to revert warring. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    





    

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=189102459"