|
| |
|---|---|
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 |
|
| Articles and content |
|
| Page handling |
|
| User conduct |
|
| Other |
|
| 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.
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 | ||
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
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.
full-protection Full-protection: Vandalism, repeated vandalism made by same user ↔ tz (talk · contribs · autographs) 18:43:27, Sunday, April 22, 2007 (UTC) 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked. by Redvers. – Steel 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Full Protection - Edited waring and some disputes about his sales need to be discussed. --Ted87 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User(s) blocked., blocked JFizzle. – Steel 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]While not having experienced vandalism before, this is a high-use template, which could cause problems to many articles if messed around with. I'd suggest leaving the talk page open if more discussion is required here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected. Cbrown1023 talk 17:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-Protection anon editors constantly add things that don't belong there. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 17:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection The article subject is participating in editing the article, with potential violations of WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. Pending comments (A RfC has been submitted) and input form the Intelligent Design project, it is probably not appropriate for the subject's reverts to continue. DocS 16:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly (hot!) 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Full-Protection. My article may cause alot of people, both IP and users, to vandalism my work. I worked very hard on researching this topic and I don't want my work butchered but if they have comments they can make post on my talk page. YungLegend07 14:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Um, there have been no edits except yours so far. Please also read WP:OWN. Cbrown1023 talk 14:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection Darren Shan, and all Darren Shan related articles, including The Saga of Darren Shan, Lord Loss, and Cirque du Freak recieve a large amount of IP vandalism. Those three articles have needed 22 reverts in the past two months, not to mention the other dozen Darren Shan related articles that exist. Because I have created a lot of the Darren Shan related articles, they are all on my watchlist, and I generally need to revert about a half dozen every week. I'm guessing this is due to the fact that a lot of Darren Shan readers are between the ages of 10 and 13, and the vandalism is considered funny to them. -AtionSong 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection Much vandalism and false info gets on that page, mostly from IP addresses. It is rather visable, too, very obvious. Many people, as well, type in CAPITAL LETTERS. Some people have learned not trust and hate Wikipedia because of the stuff that gets put on that article. --Thekittybomb 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 14:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection Large amounts of on-going vandalism ofetn by supporters of rival forms of football slagging of the other codes. This page has already had week long protection twice, would prefer a longer duration this time.GordyB 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined for now. Two IPs since unprotection early yesterday morning. Give it a chance. – Steel 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection There seems to be an edit war, with several users repeatedly substituting the current version of the article for one taken directly from Mr. Rajavi's website. These edits have lately been made by an IP and a user whose only contrib history involves this page. Large-scale edits take place without discussion on the talk pages. Dchall1 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected, will block that Syrus chap if he copies and pastes content again. – Steel 13:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Unprotect Before protecting this page, User:Centrx was the only person who edited, plus images don't really need to be protected. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined per what the image says. – Steel 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect Before this page was protected, there had been one edit in the past month or so to this article (three article revisions by one person in a short time frame). The admin User:Centrx who protected this page cites in the protection log only "WP:BLP issues" as the extent of his reasoning for protecting the page, while he has made only one very brief edit to the talk page without mentioning protecting the article. While Crookes, the subject of the article, has apparently sued Wikipedia recently, the page protection was not asserted to be a WP:OFFICE action. I've seen oodles of pages come through here with requests for protection being denied because actual vandalism is infrequent, and I believe the same applies to this page. --DachannienTalkContrib 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contact Centrx, for all you know, this could be due to OTRS or something else. Cbrown1023 talk 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotect Parts of the article do not many any sources and I can provide those sources, but I am a new member and can't edit the page at all. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I am not sure if it is possible for only a few users to be able edit a page or not. I have the source and it only take a few minutes to make the article competely cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhawkman34 (talk • contribs)
Unprotected – Steel 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Unprotect There's no semi-protection template on it; I'm not even sure WHY its semi protected. Its was semi protected by Ryulong after this edit. That was only edit of that type recently; 221.157.68.90 is blocked as an open proxy ANYWAY; so I no reason to continue the semi-protection. Salahx 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
{{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.{{Edit COI}} template should be used.Semi-Protection. There is a lot of vandalism by unregistered, IP only users. Obviously, rival schools or rebels within the school itself are defacing this page. Aquatics 03:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected – Steel 13:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection Less than 24 hours ago, a certain irresponsible admin removed the semi-protection on this article, with the result that it has been the victim of 5 vandal attacks already. The article received vandalism on a daily basis prior to its semi-protection, and it is unlikely that it will be any better off now. This article needs to be protected indefinitely. Galanskov 10:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - only one anon vandal. Never warned. Final warned just now. Low general activity. Previous admin states; "protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred or to prohibit anonymous editing in general; this article has very little activity and shouldn't be protected", with which I concur - Alison☺ 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Mattgibbins 10:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Alison☺ 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protection Highly disputed article, used often for promotion. Negative edits are quickly deleted by non registered users, likely caused by self interest.Tristan.buckmaster 09:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Riana ऋ 10:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]semi-protection, Semi-protection: High-visible template, Per Wikipedia_talk:Very_Frequently_Asked_Questions, why is this page editable? What about all the other FAQs? -- Hdt83 Chat 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined None of the FAQs are protected. There's no reason for them to be. We should allow our introductory pages to be editable - we're not trying to shut anonymous/new users out. – Riana ऋ 10:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Disable cascading protection Template:Wdefcon was transcluded into this page apparently. It is now impossible to update the WikiDefcon level because cascading protection has fully protected Template:Wdefcon. Funpika 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done – Steel 15:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
semi-protect. High level of new-user external link spamming. Vantar 08:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Riana ऋ 10:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]semi-protect. High level of new-user external link spamming. nadav 08:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Riana ऋ 10:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
semi-protect. IPs and new accounts continuously adding unsourced/erroneous sales figures; also some general vandalism in the vein of adding "shout-outs" and such. Chubbles 06:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - hopefully, they'll get bored - Alison☺ 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Full protection New and controversial images are repeatedly being reinserted into the article despite objections from editors at discussion page.Ferrylodge 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined - not appropriate to enforce a particular revision here. All - please be careful of WP:3RR here Alison☺ 06:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]This page protected yesterday after an editorial war. We've built consensus in the talk page[1]. Therefor this article can be unprotected.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Having reviewed the talkpage discussions, I'm not convinced that all parties to the dispute have been involved in reaching this consensus. Protection was recent- I think we can wait a little longer before unprotecting to make sure edit warring doesn't resume. WjBscribe 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protect. High levels of vandalism following recent defeat this evening. Sancho 05:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Alison☺ 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - give it another chance - Alison☺ 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection for an extended time; blanking by vandals after unprotection. Blanking attack may happen later. - 上村七美 | talk 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]Semi-protection Article is being vandalized numerous times a day by anons, and given how this afternoon's game ended, will remain a target for some time. Resolute 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. WinHunter (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
