[[User:Branden|Branden]] ([[User talk:Branden|talk]]) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Branden|Branden]] ([[User talk:Branden|talk]]) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:The current protection summary has a link to [[WP:PT]] which contains the relevant notice that the article has been recreated many times but shouldn't, and the link to [[WP:DRV]] for those who ''really'' want to try discussing this. What kind of protection summary would you like? [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:The current protection summary has a link to [[WP:PT]] which contains the relevant notice that the article has been recreated many times but shouldn't, and the link to [[WP:DRV]] for those who ''really'' want to try discussing this. What kind of protection summary would you like? [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::When I look at [[WP:PT]], I see no mention of the page. There's a link to a list of protected titles for this month, but the Peppers article is not mentioned there. Could you be more specific? [[User:Branden|Branden]] ([[User talk:Branden|talk]]) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, The vandalism the last week by anon IPs has been heavier than usual. It must be assigned to some junior high school..Mlouns (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - This article is a frequent, persistent target of IP vandals, often new and one-time vandals. See the article history for plenty of examples. Torc2 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - Article is the target of incessant commercial linkspam from rotating IPs, which has picked up in the last few days. No communication has been successful. --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs)17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection - a fair amount of vandalism and edit warring by IP addresses as been happening over the past week or so. Could do with a break to let things calm down. ScarianCall me Pat16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indefinite semi-protection , In my userspace - no need for an IP or new user to edit this template, which is effectively a humorous template about my WikiProject memberships..Solumeiras (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, Last night every 5-10 minuets & a few this morning semi-protect till off main page to avoid the drive-bys.Nate1481(t/c) 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote comes from a guideline not a policy, and from reading the guide it refers to the level of vandalism is extreme. I dissagree with the guideline but that another matter, as if you log in and spend 1/2 your day reverting edits you get to the point where you glance & possibly label good edits as vandalism, which is less welcoming? Warning regular contributors who helped build a featured article, before it goes on the main page to be destroyed would be polite too. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 protectiontotemplate protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
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.
It's been almost two years wince Jimmy Wales swung the ban hammer on this article, and almost one year since he invited the community to revisit it. If the page is going to remain verboten, its protection should probably develop an articulated reason (At present, the reason is, "deprecating protected titles", which isn't a reason under the new protection regime--if I understand that correctly.)
01:40, 22 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Brian Peppers" (We can live without this until 21 February 2007, and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it)
The current protection summary has a link to WP:PT which contains the relevant notice that the article has been recreated many times but shouldn't, and the link to WP:DRV for those who really want to try discussing this. What kind of protection summary would you like? Kusma (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at WP:PT, I see no mention of the page. There's a link to a list of protected titles for this month, but the Peppers article is not mentioned there. Could you be more specific? Branden (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
semi-protection - Can someone please protect my talk page for just a day or so from anon edits so I can log on at least once without receiving an offensive message from an anon IP who's been harassing me? Hopefully if my talk page is protected they'll just move on. Thanks! Somno (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for considering it anyway. I have already taken it to Wikiquette alerts; I just thought this might help me while waiting for a response from there. Somno (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't even want to semi-protect this, as there was a lot of good-faith IP activity recently. Kusma (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, Frequent silly and vulgar vandalism during January - nearly all reversions are for undoing vandalism. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, Most of the reversions are due to vandalism, and cluebot has been particularly active in identifying and reverting incessant vandalism. Request semi-protect, perhaps into february. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, Due to subject and content, article has seen a barrage of recent vandalism. Semi-protection might be in order. .Wisdom89 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protectionVandalism, January is seeing some heavy vandalism due to the controversial nature of the subject. Requesting a semi-protected page to see if it alleviates the problem.Wisdom89 (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unprotection , Page protected for far too long, should be unprotected for now because the subject is a current event and that the article's been protected for a while anyway..Solumeiras (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Mainly registered users it seems, with only a random few IPs over the last week. Jmlk1709:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
temporary semi-protection , Official line-up of this years fest not due until Feb 6. Daily multiple rumors/spurious anonymous edits..Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]