Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:04, 24 February 2007

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

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.

Skip to table of contents
requests to raise protection
lower protection
requested edits
(purge)

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Request protection

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level

Request unprotection

Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here

Request edit

this header: view • edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

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.

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

semi-protect Several instances of IP vandalism in a couple of days. Macgreco 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi-protect intense recent IP vandalism, by repeat offenders. VanTucky 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just unprotected the article a few hours ago. There are many people watchlisting the page, please wait a while before requesting page protection. Nishkid 64 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Development Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protect'. This keeps showing up in my watch list. The list of top ranked countries is too tempting to anonymous nationalists. At this point the page is probably incorrect and needs to be reconstructed from the sources by registered users. Potatoswatter 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fully protect, please. Someone seems to want to start an edit war. EDITED to add: I tried to start discussion with the user, but he/she simply erased my comments from his/her talk page. --DodgerOfZion 00:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Cbrown1023 talk 00:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N-Sider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See reversions, and note high number of spam and/or vandalism edits to the article. SProtect requested. Bl a st 23,02,07 2247 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Chi Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-Protect, please. This article is being vandalized by multiple users similtaneously! This has been occurring regularly for quite some time now. -- Wrightchr 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Hornet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect, please. This article is being vandalized by someone at 68.236.41.181; WP:3RR is also being violated by same. -- Davidkevin 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi Protect. Not sure why, but the article has been targetted for vandalism by anonymous users more than usual for the past few days. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 00:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protect. An anon user User:204.62.68.23 (who is also registered here as User:s noone but rarely uses that name) is constantly reverting sourced edits that show the subject in a less than favorable light. Although he doesn't come every day, he is consistently appearing to revert other's edits.CyberGhostface 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 00:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:66.172.163.2 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection user is removing warnings from it's user page. _→AzaToth 19:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected. for 24 hrs. I left a note on the editor's talk page explaining basic guidelines and etiquette. --Madchester 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting Full Protection. Some editors have deleted the images, then tagged the FU images that were there for speedy delete. This whole situation needs to get sorted out. When you protect the page, please make sure the images are still there. --evrik ^(talk) 19:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. For now, be sure to use descriptive edit summaries and discuss edits on talk. Cbrown1023 talk 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also asking us to protect the right version, which is impossible. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting Full Protection again. I'm sorry, it looks like i was wrong about the argument being over. It seems that they just waited until it was unprotected to start changing things again, like adding opinion and speculation, against consensus. dposse 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid 64 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection Very high vandalism from IPs. —Dgies^t c 18:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism sais it all, really. Last 50 edits (2 weeks) had 20 edits by anons or newly registerd users, all but 1 were vandalism. That's 80% of page history distorted by (mostly IP) vandals. Let's put an end to it._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semiprotect. High level of IP vandalism (deletion of sections etc). Many edits to the article are simply reversions. CloudNine 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 18:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semiprotect This article continues to recieve IP vandalism form different IP's. In the past 48 hours, all the edits have either been IP vandalism or reversion of same. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S Club 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect - Ever since the Big Brother race row, we've had an awful lot of vandalism on the main page. I request that it be semi-protected for a while until the furore dies down. Thanks :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 18:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect Consistant daily IP and new user vandalism STS01 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need this urgently! Corpx 17:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full Protection may be needed as it looks like the vandals have accounts. Corpx 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin wants people to update his page with the most outrageous stuff. He put it out on his show. This needs unprotected.

Fully protected. I suspected that the radio host asked editors to vandalise his page. --Madchester 17:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you sprotect/fullyprotect the talk page also? Talk:Colin_Cowherd Corpx 17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just read the latest update from the page before you corrected it back. He is referencing the lawsuit Fuzzy Zoeler is bringing, and how wiki may be inaccurate.

Wikipedia is not a platform for proving a point. --Madchester 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but when the subject of the entry wants its page edited, with what he wants, why block it?

Because people are adding absolute nonsense and Colin Cowherd is trying to get a big laugh out of this. Nishkid 64 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is his entry. He wants nonsense.

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

Semi-protect Incredibly high IP vandalism. Diez2 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect Heavy IP vandalism within 24 hours. Diez2 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi protect Lots of anon IP vandalism within the last 24 hours. Montanabw 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism in the last few days. Nishkid 64 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi-protect. A lot of vandalism, started today. YosefK 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined — IPs blocked instead. Kusma (討論) 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi protect due to a lot of vandalism (by new accounts and sometimes anonymous users), involving mainly replacing the whole page with the Flag of Japan or the Naval Ensign of Japan. - Nick C 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined — seems to be just one user, better to block the user than to protect the page. Use WP:AIV if the user returns. Kusma (討論) 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi protect or full protection due to every edit since the 19th being vandalism, this isn't the first time the page has had to be protected due to constant vandal attention. Anything that prevents the huge stream of reverts would be great. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected Kusma (討論) 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi protect due to recent implementation of false facts.(reverted already)padddy5 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Kusma (討論) 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham Grammar School for Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Almost every edit to this page in the last week were either vandalism or reverting of vandalism. — Gary Kirk // talk! 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined — only one IP is vandalizing and hasn't resumed after a recent block. Kusma (討論) 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect. This innocuous dab page isn't a high traffic article, but I would estimate that 80-90% of recent edits have consisted of IP vandalism and reversions of vandalism. Virtually nothing constructive has been added in the past few weeks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Kusma (討論) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orkney-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protect. IP vandalism. Mais oui! 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocritical request by Mais oui! as it is he that is doing the vandalism. He is very fond of calling all edits he does not agree with "vandalism" and attacking all contributors who contradict him e.g. with accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry. 81.158.162.97 11:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected and 81.158.162.97 just be grateful you've not been blocked for 3RR. You're going to have to agree on the wording of this on the talk page as both arguments do have their merits. -- Heligo land 13:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article recently came out off of full protection that was originally instituted due to edit warring and now the edit warring has started back up. Kindly return to full protection. Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support full protection. Beit Or 11:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As do I.Proabivouac 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. Kusma (討論) 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[1] by HighInBC. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Robo Blast 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protected title protection because that's the new thing now for problematic recreated pages. Hbdragon88 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Robdurbar 10:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Simpsons Movie (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-Protect - Lots of hoax vandalism from IPs and new users. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Talk pages should only be protected in extreme cases of vandalism. Just watchlist it for now and revert any hoaxes/vandalism. –Llama man^talk_contribs 04:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:yells at soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

heavy amounts of vandalism --yells at soup | Talkスープの叫び声 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected –Llama man^talk_contribs 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bbb00723 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Full Protection - Vandal-only account keeps clearing templates from talk page, has needed reversion several times in the last ten minutes. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected, will be deleted soon per {{indefblocked}} category. Daniel.Bryant 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Semi protect' There seems to be a coordinated attack from several anons in various areas on this page (attacks from Atlanta and Asheville noted so far). Should be OK in a few hours, but it's hell keeping up with the reverts right now. Justin Eiler 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already protected. by User:Antandrus. -- ReyBrujo 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full Protection. Vandalism occuring on Today's Featured Article (23 Feb 07). Please protect. MojoTas 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Featured articles should not be protected unless very specific situations. So far, the vandalism is limited to childish one. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection. Various users keep listing random people as gangsters in the middle of select paragraphs (not unlike what used to happen on the Tool page). Anthony Rupert 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected, just three changes in the last two days, but the article has been vandalized over 20 times in the last week. -- ReyBrujo 03:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protection. Edit warring by various IPs is a habit on this page. Anthony Rupert 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System of a Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protection - Anons adding a lot of false information and vandalism. Artaxiad 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Great Deals -- Reborn (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

full-protection. User is indefinitely blocked, but repeatedly vandalizes his own talk page, removing various user warnings and such. Version that should be protected is any of the reverted versions that include user warnings and not his vandalized version. I can't rely on the correct version staying up because he repeatedly vandalizes it. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[2] by Ryulong. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi-protect. High level of IP linkspamming, almost certainly banned user JB196. One Night In Hackney 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected--Húsönd 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Balkenende cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi Protection Main page current events article seems to be getting vandalism. Given the location of the article, until it's off the main page, semi-protection seems justified. MojoTas 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected--Húsönd 01:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi Protection Constant IP / new user vandalism. Article history is packed with reversions. Considering it may be one of the most read articles on Wikipedia, it should probably be semi protected. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Current level of vandalism does not justify any protection.--Húsönd 01:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dora the Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi protection Has been vandalized several times by anonymous editors since protection lapsed. Steve8675309 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been valdalized six times in a little over a day since a temporary protection lapsed. How much vandalism does it take to get the page protected? Steve8675309 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi protection Has been vandalized sevral times after being unprotected--Falcon866 00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 00:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting half protection for Cake (allow registered users to edit). Today alone this article was vandalized 3 times by different people before it was noticed, and none of the IP edits have been constructive for weeks, making it difficult for me to improve this article. (jarbarf) 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barenaked Ladies Are Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting full protection for Barenaked Ladies Are Men. I have requested comment on the talk page to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the titled album deserves a separate article. However, the two main editors working on the article are involved in an increasily nasty edit war over this decision. Thank you. JPG-GR 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! JPG-GR 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting semi protection for JetBlue Airways page. Ever since last week's incident, anonymous editors have descended on the site, changing mentions of the incident and other info to their specifications. Also, reverts are talking place by registered users as well. Any assistance you could give would be appreciated. Thank you. Neo16287 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 23:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance! Neo16287 23:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China-geo-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rescopped and recategorised by user:Huaiwei [3] to his preferred structure, disregarding consensus established upon creations of this stub type and other similar stub types. User:SchmuckyTheCat, who's user:Huaiwei's long-time ally, re-introduced the changes, citing my revert to user:Huaiwei's edit was " pov re-organization " and " breaks stub categorization " [4]. Many articles, categories and templates on Wikipedia have been affected with similar edits. Neither of them had ever agreed to preserve status quo ante regardless of preference of any party and cool down, nor had they ever agreed to discuss the matter to resolve the issue at one place. — Insta ntnood 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[5] by Majorly. Nishkid 64 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do hope the administor's action will help cool down the troubles, and lead the parties towards actual discussion for an ultimate resolution. — Insta ntnood 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Instantnood's request right after making a revert in the disputed template. It is casue for concern why Instantnood should require page protection before wanting to discuss about it, considering he made no attempt to do so prior to this.--Huaiwei 23:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was simply because the current version reflects the status quo ante. By introducing changes contrary to the consensus established, you have the burden and obligation to explain and discuss the reason(s) why. — Insta ntnood 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. If someone requests protection after being the last one to update the article, that's perfectly fine. Nishkid 64 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protection for a day or two. Revert warring by a number of editors, some insisting that they don't need a consensus, their edit is policy, etc. If an admin could take a look that would be great. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid 64 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect: High livel of IP vandalism to due to the recent and ongoing announcement of inductees. -- Scorpion 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism for the past day. --Benten 21:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protection. Recent spate of IP vandalism/addition of nonsense to the article (mostly by Irish colleges/universities) due to the lineup of this festival gradually being announced. The article requires four or five reverts a day at present. Kaini 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protection. Insistence from multiple IPs that multiple photos be included on page. No response at article Talk page. No response after attempt to contact user at their Talk page, reverts continued. 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid 64 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the IPs who want to include the photos refuse to respond at either the article Talk or their own Talk pages; they just revert. The article currently is protected as looking the way they want it, so they are unlikely to respond. What can we do? 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Try to get them to come to the talk page. Tell them that if they don't come, the page will be unprotected because no discussion has started and no progress has been made. Nishkid 64 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protection. Insistence from multiple IPs that multiple photos be included on page. No response at article Talk page. No response after attempt to contact user at their Talk page, reverts continued. 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Nishkid 64 21:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the IPs who want to include the photos refuse to respond at either the article Talk or their own Talk pages; they just revert. The article currently is protected as looking the way they want it, so they are unlikely to respond. What can we do? 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Try to get them to come to the talk page. Tell them that if they don't come, the page will be unprotected because no discussion has started and no progress has been made. Nishkid 64 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect on a permanent basis. Subject is very popular and article is at FA class. Article is very prone to vandalism from anonymous editors. It recently came off of temporary semi-protection, and as soon as it did, the vandalism came back. Please semi-protect permanently. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-Protect due to regular vandalism, trolling, POV pushing and personal attacks by anonymous IP users. The subject of this biography is connected to the current Anna Nicole Smith drama. Like the biographies of other subjects connected with this scandal, his biography warrants protection. Cleo123 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to BLP concerns. Nishkid 64 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. One Night In Hackney 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Against the Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi Protect due to frequent recent vandalism by random IP addresses.Skomorokh 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-Protect(with no expiry date) I have better things to do than reverting this article 15 times a month (80% of my edits are on pl wikipedia), this article is vandalised daily and it's been a long time since an IP editor added something useful to this article. Mieciu K 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Protect from re-creation. Since a definitive AfD discussion in December 2006, this page has been recreated four times, three within the last 24 hours. RWR8189 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected . WinHunter ^(talk) 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-Protect Constant (almost daily) IP vandalism. Victao lopes 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail spam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect Heavy IP vandalism from multiple IPs. Diez2 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both users have been blocked from editing. Nishkid 64 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of the Stone Age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi Protect due to vandalism by random IP addresses. dposse 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect Heavy IP vandalism from one person going on only little things but a large volume of it. Also, user is sending abusive and insulting posts to talk pages. Unfair as this is just a town Wiki, not a severe topic. --Wikidrone20000 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full Protect with oversight rollback. Subject of AP article involving Wikipedia. Will be vandal targetted all day. SHould probably be front office protectedd until it dies down. Oversight deletions to August have already occured. --Tbeatty 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page semi-protected [6] by Isotope23. Nishkid 64 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Half protection please. Such things should not happen! Marcus Cyron 12:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid 64 22:06, 22 February 2007 (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.

System of a Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There wasn't any vandalism. Other users just requested protection for the page because they wanted to retain their views, even though multiple other visitors to the site were making contributions and additions which were both discussed in the discussion section, and also widely accepted. This should be unprotected immediately as this page has never received any vandalism from whilst I have been maintaining information on it User:Anon-User 09:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There wasn't any vandalism. Administrators just kept reverting everybody's neutral contributions. That's called an edit war, not vandalism. An administrator should know that Kid. If you want to stop the edit war, just block JgJay and JakeW, oh wait, they're admins and Wikipedia has ZERO control over other Admins. My mistake for thinking Wikipedia was free for people to edit. The Blend 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Features new to Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was protected due to edit warring and excessive reversion on February 9. I believe the protection has continued far longer than a reasonable "cooling off" period. If users violate WP:3RR, they can be blocked, and semi-protection can be used if necessary. Dfeuer 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:yells at soup (edit | [[Talk:user:yells at soup|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

been semiprotected for a day and the vandals have stoped --yells at soup | Talkスープの叫び声 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you request the page to be unprotected, the userpage gets hit by more vandalism. This page should be protected for a much longer period of time. Nishkid 64 18:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting unprotection. The argument seems to be over with. dposse 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's been protected for just over a month now, but most of the disruption was caused by a single IP (129.79.194.241). It shouldn't have been protected in the first place as a single block would have been sufficient and no overt vandalism was going on anyway. --82.198.250.70 09:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected Agreed. --Robdurbar 10:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Stirling Newberry (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Stirling Newberry|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attempted to leave msg for user, but unable to due to protection. Why is a talk page protected anyway? Henry Martinez 05:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected WP:USER - we tend to be more open to allowing users to have their own pages protected. You could still possibly contact the user via e-mail, or make a request for an edit to a protected page. --Robdurbar 10:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's been semi-protected for almost two weeks, at least set the protection to expire soon. John Reaves (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected There seems to be a number of problems going on between registered editors, without opening it up yet. I don't see a need to set an arbitrary time limit, just re-request unproteciton if the page dies down a bit or in a week or so. --Robdurbar 10:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandalism has died since protection (only two good faith edits since). John Reaves (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection prevents IPs and newly registered users from editing. Those were the ones who were vandalizing in the first place. Just wait until the protection expires in 3 days. Nishkid 64 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

This user (me) hasn't abused his (mine) talk page, so protection (it is fully protected, if I understand correctly) is not necessary. Thank you. Von Klinker 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked indefinitely for repeated vandalism and some Brian Peppers nonsense. You are still blocked, and I don't see any valid reason for unprotecting it now. Nishkid 64 00:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it was "repeated vandalism". Study carefully history of articles in question and their talk pages - there was no consensus to keep this images, especially inline.

Second issue - "For Brian Peppers" was in only two edit summaries - I don't think it warrants so harsh actions (i.e. indfinite block and full protection of talk page). Von Klinker 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were told what you were doing wrong. Wikipedia is not censored. Any encyclopedia that intends to have articles about everything will have some content that some may consider pornographic. Nishkid 64 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was semi-protected on 31 January due to a bizarre vandalism spree of inserting primâ facie ludicrous material. The vandal IPs and accounts have contributed nothing since, so I think it's safe to lift the semi-protection. Sam Blacketer 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been semi-protected since September 2006 - 6 months ago. Absurd. Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The disruptive party has been banned.(User:Patchouli) --Gerash 77 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is today's featured article. In accordance with Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection the page should not be semi-protected. Editors should be capable of reverting vandalism, warning vandals, and reporting them to administrators on the WP:aiv page if needed. Funpika 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to request the same thing. It's been protected for entirely too long. John Reaves (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. Nishkid 64 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been protected for almost a month, and the discussion is basically dead, and was a non-starter anyway. If there were still an active dispute, one might expect it to still exist on the talk page; it does not. siafu 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is way too long. At least 30% of it is nonessential bias to persuade one in a particular direction. There seems to be just one or two rogue editors that flooded the page with nonsense. Most visitors just want it fixed. The Blend 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warning. Mieciu K 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Nishkid 64 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dedicated video game consoles (edit | [[Talk:Template:Dedicated video game consoles|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No compromise discussion is taking place, full protection seems rather harsh for a template that wasn't really being vandalized anyway. - Joshua368 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

Shortcut

WP:RFED

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.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom infobox, THE PRESENT:
|image_map = Europe location UK.png
|map_caption = Map showing the location of the United Kingdom.
SHOULD BECOME (AS THE MAP HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE): (copy from here viewed page, not from nowikied source here)
|image_map = EU location UK.png
|map_caption = Location of the [[United Kingdom]] (dark orange)<p style="text-align:left;margin-left:1.2ex;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:-2px;line-height:1em;">– in the [[European Union]] (light orange)<br/>– at the [[Europe|European continent]] (EU + clear) — ([[:Image:EU location legend.png|Legend]])</p>
ABSOLUTE REASON: Regardless whether the EU member states should have a location map that also shows that location within the EU, all 25 other EU members show that style EU location map and most non-EU members at the European continent use the Europe location map as User:The Professor caused now to be in the United Kingdom article. (The only other exception is for now still Spain but that uses a totally different kind of map, while the current map at the UK most strongly suggests that the UK is like all the other countries that use that style map, not a member state of the UK. That is a clear false statement, not a mere POV: the fact of the membership is not disputed, and an encyclopaedia mustnot mislead people towards false facts.
The maps were discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Countries (though not in particular for the UK) and also on Talk:United Kingdom (about usage for the UK), and there is clearly no consensus; but 25 EU countries had adopted the EU location map as I checked three days ago and this largely remained so thus there appears a de facto consensus; from the short edit-war at the UK article a few days ago, it appears that only User:The Professor-User Talk:The Professor actually reverted a couple of times without support for the immediate reverts and I distinctly recall that last night his short (4 edits or so) talk page showed that several users complained for reverts on other matters as well. What I do not understand, is how there is now only one old edit and the history page confirms what is now on the page - Is this Professor an admin or a sockpuppet controlled by an admin, or how can one manipulate a history page??? Anyway, the protection appears to have been caused by an entirely different dispute, and it did not involve The Professor either. My caption text for the map is new, exactly as has been put in the infobox of the other EU members (see as sample e.g. Belgium). — SomeHuman 23 Feb 2007 20:57 (UTC)

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

There are currently messages embedded in the text 3 times that ask users to email their usernames and passwords to a hotmail account designed to look like an official email address belonging to the site monitors. This kind of scam is dangerous to have posted in the Wiki for a site that is used worldwide, but cannot be erased from the text due to the protection in place on the article. It would be great if someone could look into this. Thanks!

Fizzbee 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Lts (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)

Basically there's a double use of another template, which should only appear in the Doc page. I've explained what to do on the talk. If you're not a template guru, the simplest thing would be to copy and paste the Meta version in. Thanks // FrankB 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The weather in London

Were The weather in London not a metasyntactic variable in Wikipedia help (see Wikipedia:Protected titles/Deliberate redlinks), it would more than likely be a redirect to Climate of London. But because the talk page itself is protected, I cannot perform my SOP of using {{editprotected}} to bring up this issue on a talk page. Please unprotect the talk page or add content to the talk page to the following effect:

--Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Robdurbar 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an attack page being run by a group of people who don't like her. I think it should be unprotected so that it can be nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 12:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected., as far as I can tell. Daniel.Bryant 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected Still protected. -- Avi 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Istanbul is in a terrible shape and I have the resources and skills to improve it. Regards. DragutBarbarossa 18:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose your changes at the article's talk page, and obtain consensus with other editors before doing {{editprotected}}. Nishkid 64 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is protected apparently because of his status as an ex-member of US Congress and my status as a noob. He is also one of the greatest track & field milers of all time and the discussion of his athletic career needs a major update. I have proposed some changes on the Talk page and would like to expand on this further, but am awaiting permission prior to doing a full write up.Fizbin 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Nishkid 64 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix scheme

There has been a minor edit war due to a disagreement over external links. It was brought to our attention that the external links failed to meet several of Wikipedia rules, and upon further investigation this was proved to be true. The links were for matrixwatch.org and cyberama.info. Both external links fail on similar points of the Verifibility and Advertising sections of the External Link rules. We have tried to discuss this rationally on the Talk page, but instead of having a rational discussion it has degraded to character assassination.

I ask that ALL external links be deleted due to them both failing the criteria needed. --Cybertrax (talk 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Discuss on the talk page, it was only locked today. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Peanut Butter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page is protected from re-creation. I wrote a decent article on the subject, located at this subpage - User:Flvg94/The_Truth_About_Peanut_Butter. Please substitute the current blank page with my article, and if protection is still needed against vandals, lock the article from further edits. -Flvg94 17:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined A total of zero sources, and looks barely notable anyway. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, In the episode, the main character of American Dad! is seen writing a Wikipedia article on "The Truth About Peanut Butter". A number of people have duplicated his efforts in real life, and this is not a notable subject at all. Nishkid 64 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fulfilled/denied requests

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

Full-protect, on going edit war.Nikita3 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for 3 days as the major source of the problem is from the same IP. Hopefully 3 days will cool down the problem.--Jusjih 14:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request Unprotect. This article has been on protected status for quite awhile. Probably too long if you consider WP:BOLD along with Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia available for any editor to edit. Please see most recent discussion on its talkpage. Ronbo76 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already unprotected.. Page has never been protected - somebody just put the template on, which doesn't actually do anything. – riana_dzasta 08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll leave it unprotected, as Ronbo76 and riana dzasta have requested. But if there are more vandals and trolls who spoil it action will be taken. Robert Moore 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect or Full protection should be the ultimate last measure. WP:OWN might need a review. Lots of articles get vandalization. Just because this article gets hits like others does not require extreme measures. If Feature Articles can remain unprotected during their run on the page (to include the afternoon/day prior and up to two days after being featured, this article can surely survive with the editors watching over it. Ronbo76 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:A. B. (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)}

This has been semi-protected for about 3 months. I think the vandal who hit it every night has gone away. I have multiple anons complaining about not being able to complain on my talk page about the spam warnings I've put on their talk pages. They're also upset about my spam blacklist requests. Out of fairness I reckon we should open the page up to them as long as they don't vandalize it. (I can't wait!) --A. B. ^(talk) 13:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect this is a user page Ignatius Eric Hadinata 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected--Húsönd 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect Heavy IP vandalism going on only little things but a large volume of it. --Lucy-marie 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.--Húsönd 11:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect - Anon + User engaging in edit war, semi till we fix this please. Artaxiad 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both have violated the 3RR just now, the anon i warned but he reverted after, the user has not been notified first timer. Artaxiad 10:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected due to edit war. Additionally, both users blocked for 3RR violation.--Húsönd 11:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect - Recent vandalism over the past week. - Vicer 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Childish vandalism to articles about days/years is quite common. Current level of vandalism to this one does not justify protection.--Húsönd 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect. As soon as a legitimate edit is added, multiple account and ip's vandalise and change it back so it's basically controlled by these hooligans. They falsely say in the edit history they are reverting vandilism to make them look innocent, when in fact they are vandilising. 220.237.59.203 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If vandalism continues at current level for three/four days, then protection may be necessary. --Robdurbar 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glendale, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting semi-protect as it's being Link Spammed with a parked super-bowl page by anonymous users, and will probably only get worse as next year's event draws closer. Uagent 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – riana_dzasta 08:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full protection, Edit war. --Shamir1 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected. Please try to resolve issues amicably on the talk page. – riana_dzasta 08:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been under full protection for 10 days now. The mediation has ended, but the mediator is having internet server difficulties and left a trouble message in his/her user page. Mediation link. Mediator link. I am uninvolved in the dispute (an argument about external links), but wish to edit the article. I personally think locking down an article due to a dispute netween 3 editors is a bad solution. Just block them so the rest of us can continue creating an encyclopedia. Thanks. Jeffpw 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the three editors involved in the dispute. The mediation is not yet finalized as the mediator is having ISP problems. But I agree with un-protecting the entry. I don't, however, think that blocking any of those involved in the dispute is warranted. In my opinion, this is not a situation where such a drastic action would be necessary, but will honor any admin decision. Thanks for your consideration. Labyrinth13 23:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected, but be warned that any further edit wars can and will result in blocks, --Robdurbar 09:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protect. So far as I can tell, all recent anon edits are vandalism. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected – riana_dzasta 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting full protection as this is a frequently used High-risk template which has recently been subject to several instances of vandalism. John254 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected high risk template protected as per policy after recent vandalism. Gnan garra 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tagged as semi-protected, but it's not. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was tagged such by User:Doktor Who, who I don't think is an admin. So I guess consider this request on his behalf. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected –Llama man^talk_contribs 04:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Shippūden: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Naruto Shippūden: Narutimate Accel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Both articles hounded by anonymous users who are constantly adding speculation about which characters appear in the game. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. neither IP has recieved any warnings nor has any attempt at discussion occured Gnan garra 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ===={{la|Chicken}}====
 '''semi-protect''' intense recent IP vandalism, by repeat offenders. [[User:VanTucky|VanTucky]] 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
+:[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] I just unprotected the article a few hours ago. There are many people watchlisting the page, please wait a while before requesting page protection. '''[[User:Nishkid64|<span style="background:#009;color:#7FFF00">Nish</span><span style="background:cyan;color:#009">kid</span>]][[User talk:Nishkid64|<span style="background:orange;color:navy blue">64</span>]]''' 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 ===={{la|Human Development Index}}====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards