Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/Pre-2012

Disclaimer: This archive page consists of RfPP requests as they were requested, created by going through the page history. For this reason, constructive modifications are welcome.

Archive of old RfPP requests which begins Jan. 1, 2005. Comments that have been removed are ~~struck~~.

January 1, 2005

Jew and 9/11

Jew and September 11, 2001 attacks are undergoing repeated vandalism. Maurreen 07:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red Ensign

Edit war at Red Ensign with user adding unintelligble comments. AndyL 07:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. 172 08:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael Danby

Please protect Michael Danby, due to edit war. --HK 14:34, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit war indeed, didn't you revert that page just minutes before posting this request? silsor 15:22, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Be sure not to protect on the wrong version, silsor. anthony 警告 15:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly did revert it; User:Xtra has been reverting to a misleading version of the article, and has deleted the NPOV flag. Protect whichever version you like, but the reader should know that there is a dispute. --HK 15:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake should be protected ASAP. Any further additions should be made by admins. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 15:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally can't justify this under wikipedia:protection policy and especially without support from other users. This is one of our most edited pages at the moment. silsor 16:15, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is a unique situation which does not seem to have occurred to the authors of the policy. There are, however, three conditions which concern "maintaining integrity" in some way, and the spirit of those conditions should be applied to this page given the scale of the disaster and the potential for scammers to take advantage of the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake by abusing Wikipedia's openness. Wikipedia must not accidentally become associated with such predators. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should mention Tompagenet also requests this. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the talk page you recommended that after protection, admins review links to be added. Why can't link review be done by non-admins on an unprotected page? There is a very large warning at the top of the page to keep viewers from falling into scam traps and direct them to the warnings and discussion on the talk page. silsor 17:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

The page would be much better if it didn't need that warning at all. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However, without protection that's not going to happen. Agreed. If this page is protected, I'll put it on my watchlist and check at least every 12 hours for links which need adding/changing. Pak aran 02:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

André Nilsen

Please unprotect André Nilsen. No reason for protection given at Wikipedia:Protected pages. anthony 警告 20:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected this on your earlier request today and deleted the protection stub that was left behind. The article text which was deleted by VfD a month ago was almost immediately reinserted by an anonymous user. Looks like this needs to stay protected. silsor 23:14, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Protecting an article on a bastardised version is absolutely not necessary. At the very least make it an encyclopedia article before you protect it. anthony 警告 23:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 2, 2005

Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Please unprotect these two articles. They have been edited just twice in the past several days, based on discussions by the opposing editors, yet the reason incorrectly given for protection is "edit war continuing." -Rob

There has been no further discussion by the requestor of the protections in days. Other editors wish to continue enhancing the articles. Unprotect. -Rob

I'll take your word for it and unprotect them, but I'm prepared to reprotect if reverting starts yet again. silsor 01:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

January 3, 2005

LiveJournal

Please protect the LiveJournal page -- despite appropriate use for many months (if not years) it is veering into edit wars & multiple reversions due to hijacking by soapboxers unhappy with the LiveJournal portal and abuseteam staff.
Thank you for your time.

This request was made by 172.191.123.171 who has no contributions other than LiveJournal, Talk:LiveJournal and this request under the current IP. While the LiveJournal article has recently had some slightly contraversial edits, there have certainly not been multiple reversions recently. The user making the request has recently reverted approximately two weeks' worth of edits (which I have re-reverted). During those two weeks, there was exactly one reversion, which was of obvious vandalism. There has been a good-faith effort on behalf of all parties who have been routinely editing to improve the article, and no edit war. Rho 22:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a WHOIS lookup on the IP address in interests of clarity. It is a proxy address belonging a major ISP. Consequently it's completely unsuitable for tracking. Author identity does not necessarily generally mean anything in respect of contributions. Anon. poster's posited basis for reversion was explained in article discussion. User:Rho appears to have misunderstood the term 'veering'?
The "[G]ood faith efforts by all parties" comment is questionable. History/Discussion pages clearly show from initial contested 'controversy' edit [a major edit made with zero explanation] that although there HAVE been some efforts at moderate discussion these have been one-sided particularly in respect of the person who added the content? whitehorse 16:42, 3 January, 2005 (UTC)

January 4, 2005

Template:Stub

Please unprotect Template:Stub so that I can change the ugly alt="Wiki letter w" to alt="". —AlanBarrett 07:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. silsor 01:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mega Man series

Please protect Mega Man series, as it has broken down into a revert war between myself and an anon user. I'd like a cool-dwon period while it is resolved in talk. Khanartist 20:29, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Protected. silsor 01:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

January 5, 2005

Macedonian Slavs

Please protect Macedonian Slavs, which is suffering repeated POV deletions by User:Kapnisma. I'll take it to WP:RFC but in the meantime it needs protection to provide an opportunity for other Wikipedians to express a view. -- ChrisO 00:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Various Image articles related to map of India

The following requests were posted on the Talk pages of at least three arbitrators, User:The Cunctator, User:The Epopt and User:Jdforrester, and have had no effect. As any editor can see, the reverter in question - User:Gzornenplatz - has already been arbitrated for reverting against concensus and without discussion but continues his behaviour, and for some reason the arbitrators named don't feel like doing much to apply their rulings, so I am posting this request here again. -- Simonides 00:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) PS Please also see this page Image:IndiaNumbered.png and protect that too.

Hello, I originally posted this (slightly modified) comment on 23rd December on the Talk pages of User:The Epopt and one other arbitrator. There seems to have been little or no effect (ie perhaps a 24 hr block was placed but the reverts continue), so I am requesting you or any other arbitrator to take some long-term action that will prevent Gzornenplatz's constant hijacking of Wikipedia pages to prove a point (see the post with links for more detail.) -- Simonides 02:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, according to this remedy (i.e. the fourth) in the recently closed arbitration case against Gzornenplatz et al., the arbitrated editors are required to discuss pages before making reverts to them, or risk being banned. As you will notice from these links, mentioned before on the evidence page, Gzornenplatz - while restricting himself to one revert a day - has in fact continued to revert without discussion for a number of concensus-arrived image-articles during and after arbitration, effectively making 20-30 reverts a day every few days, and causing other editors (ie me and a couple of others) a lot of uneccessary, time-wasting work over the past 2 months; if this could be stopped as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. -- Simonides

I discussed this with Neutrality (an arbitrator) on IRC, who told me that a separate block could be applied for each infraction. I count 56 clear infractions of the arbcom ruling on those image pages, for a total block time of 56 days according to the arbcom ruling. I welcome other comments from Gzornenplatz, interested users or arbitrators before applying this measure. silsor 01:27, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

What is the infraction? This is one and the same issue covering many pages so the discussion hardly needs to be repeated on each talk page. I have discussed it long ago on Talk:India, where my objection has not been refuted. Simonides is plain lying that his position is consensus-arrived (see for example John Kenney's comment that I am "clearly right" on the issue). (As I said before to the deaf ears of the arbitrators, the whole arbitration ruling is based on this fallacy - I have always discussed every issue, I'm just not repeating the same point on dozens of talk pages when one and the same issue affects many articles, like the issue of the former German names of the Polish cities etc.) Gzornenplatz 01:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what the arbitrator told me, so I'm waiting for further comments from others. silsor 01:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If you are going by number of reverts after arbitration, Gzornenplatz reverted these pages once again after I requested protection, so instead of 2x28=56 reverts since arbitration, he has made 3x28=84 reverts. -- Simonides 03:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not 2*28, some were reverted 3 times while others were reverted 1 time after arbitration. silsor 03:25, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

Silsor: thanks for entering the discussion. Let's break this down to keep it simple.

Since Gzornenplatz has accused me of "plain lying" may I remind him that it's an ad hominem and yet another infraction?
Since he pretends to be completely honest, may I ask why he links to just one comment that backs him up, posted about two weeks after the actual concensus discussion, and ignores all comments directed against his actions?
Since he claims there was no concensus, may I ask why his edits have been reverted by User:Poccil (see [29]) and on various other pages, also by User:Hemanshu, User:Kunjan1029 and User:Nichalp?
Since he claims that the concensus map is POV, why doesn't he try to correct it by creating a new map that is NPOV? Does he agree
That the CIA map is even more incorrect and POV than the current map?
If the current map is POV and without concensus, why doesn't he also revert the other image on the article Image:IndiaTest.png which was created well before I was an editor on the article and uses the same colours and similar wording, and which reached concensus earlier?
If the image has not reached concensus, why does there seem to be agreement on the current map among several users, and why was he requested not to revert images by User:Kunjan1029 and User:ashwatha on this page?
If he thinks the CIA version is the concensus version, how come there is concensus against it here - again, before I entered the debate on this article?
If he has in fact "discussed" the issue, why are there so many requests for him to return to the Talk page and a gleeful comment by User:Ankur that he should "(be) kicked out for good" because he "has no regard for concensus" on the Evidence page?

I think a satisfactory answer to each of these questions would resolve this issue quickly, but I also think the above user will show little inclination to "repeat" himself again and continue to revert and/or be banned. -- Simonides 02:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(If this discussion's going to continue, at least learn to spell consensus, please). Mark ¹ 08:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Administrators have common sense discretion when it comes to enforcement. Sum up 3 and 28 or 2 and 28 if you want to be sticklers; but such draconian measures are utterly unfair without warning. Gzornenplatz has made more valuable contributions than most admin. I rarely (if ever) see instances where he is in the wrong, at least when it comes to encyclopedic integrity, when he is reverting. Block him for a day with a warning. But give him another chance while he gains a better understanding of the restraints imposed on his editing... If he is blocked for such an unreasonable span of time, I will look into whether or not it's in my discretion as another admin to unblock him because he did not have a fair warning. 172 08:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday I did just this, he is blocked for 24 hours. silsor 13:16, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked Gzornenplatz for 24 hours as per arbcom decision. silsor 18:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question: What was my infraction? Are you seriously saying I have to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages if the issue is one and the same? I have explained the matter previously on Talk:India and unless anyone demonstrates how Simonides' version is NOT clearly POV - depicting as it does the international border according to the Indian government view, whereas the world is generally neutral on the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan - I will continue to revert those images to Morwen's original versions which show the de facto line of control and is thus perfectly neutral. Gzornenplatz 03:25, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the question before. I am not saying you need to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages. You may have set out your point of view in the past, but the issue of blocking is that as far as I can tell you are not attempting to discuss the issue or reach a compromise, or are even willing to do so at all. According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, "If Gzornenplatz, Shorne, or VeryVerily should revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page, an administrator may ban him for up to 24 hours." I take your constant and continuing reverting of these articles to be in violation of this. Due to the scale of the reverting I felt you should get a longer time out, but after requesting clarification from the arbitration committee a 24 hour block was decided on. If you attempt to continue this line of conversation with right-or-wrong arguments from the Pakistan-India territory debate I will simply ignore them; I am only interested in the Wikipedia community side of this dispute. silsor 03:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

4chan

It's been decided in the talk page to just give up on the whole mess and redirect the article to Imageboard where 4Chan.Org is covered. However, it's still getting vandalized and even reverted. Suggest having the redirect protected and leaving it that way, considering how the /b/tards behave... --Paul Soth 01:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but not all information is merged into imageboard (see for example the original characters section). Isn't this moving the problem anyway? Couldn't you list it on highly vandalized pages? 131.211.210.157 10:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho

I have had to revert the page 3 times(maybe more) everyday. Some users write in bad language, pervert the text, replacing the page with profanity and sometimes writing obscene things. So, I think the page should be protected. -- Carlosar 02:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be one or two people doing all the vandalism. This can be dealt with by blocking the users who are doing it. I have left a warning on their talk page. silsor 02:28, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Warning ignored, user blocked for a week. silsor 23:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

January 6, 2005

Tsunami

This looks like the usual parade of anon vandalism on a well-publicized page: section blanking, nonsense insertion, and "friends of homosexuals" syndrome. - jredmond 16:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mega Man series

Please unprotect Mega Man series. as the dispute appears to have been resolved. Khanartist 23:08, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

January 7, 2005

CompactTOCs

Template:CompactTOC, Template:CompactTOC2, Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers

These seem to have been protected a long time ago, but I can't find any discussion about why. I see where some room for improvement can be made, to eliminate some redundancy and make 'em look nice. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

For 48 hours due to continued vandalism by 219.93.174.96/28. Pages Sailor Senshi and Usagi Tsukino also need to be protected for the same reason. Denelson83 21:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is easier to deal with by blocking the user. One IP currently blocked by Cyrius; I will expand it. silsor 01:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

We got emails from accidentally blocked users so it appears this narrow range is used by quite a few people. Unblocked, so please ask again if protection is needed. silsor 05:28, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thats odd, this range (219.92.0.0 - 219.93.255.255, or 219.92.0.0/15) is for an ISP in Malaysia, so I'm curious just how many legitimate users were blocked. -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

January 8, 2005

There were no requests for protection on January 8, 2005.

January 9, 2005

Ohio Wesleyan University

This page is being protected by user:Rananim, who also seems to be editing the page under ISP number 132.236.38.114 (which according to WHOIS is assigned to Cornell University). As second IP address at Cornell is also being used by someone making almost identical edits as Rananim. The article needs content work, Rananim refuses even to allow edits stand for even 24 hours.

Rananim also refuses acknowledge information and facts provided by the Ohio Wesleyan archivist with whom I am in contact with. Rananim/132.236.38.114 has made over 25+ entries/edits to this page in a 24 hour period. I have tried to engage him in discussion, but he refuses to see it anyway but his. When I made an overhaul to the page earlier today, Rananim reverted most of the edits within an hour. I am just trying to get the facts correct for this entry - whats the point of trying to fix something so others can see it if he reverts everything to his liking? ~~He's already indicated that he will not allow one factual edit to stand.~~ Help!

Rananim is not a sysop, and therefore cannot protect pages. Can you explain what you mean that he is protecting the page? Rick K 10:40, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think they mean "guarding" the page. silsor 17:10, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I meant guarding. I'm sorry for the confusion in terminology. [[User:Stude62|"user: stude62"]] 00:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Edit war. Two editors who are Lyndon LaRouche supporters, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper, are deleting material that reflects badly on LaRouche. The disputed edits have been made by a journalist who is familiar with the LaRouche organizaton and who has become a Wikipedia editor. Since January 7, the LaRouche editors have deleted almost every edit the journalist has made, even though he has provided full citations. It would be appreciated if the latest version could be protected, regardless of who the editor is, so that all the editors are forced to discuss the issues on Talk. SlimVirgin 17:10, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

January 10, 2005

There were no requests for protection on January 10, 2005.

January 11, 2005

Russia

There is an ongoing revert war over infobox template. The article Russia seems to be the primary victim. --Gene s 11:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly

Victim of Randroid ~~POV-pushers who refuse~~ Modified to "POV-pushing. Users refuse" to discuss the problems with the advocacy that they want to insert in the article with Mydogategodshat, Rd232, and me. 172 21:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 12, 2005

Russ Feingold

There is a revert war regarding the inclusion of information presenting Feingold in a positive light. Acegikmo1 07:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War

Edit war. The Polish nationalist POV warriors are quite territorial, it seems. 172 22:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 13, 2005

Political views of Lyndon LaRouche

Could this page be unprotected, please? The editor whose reversions triggered the edit dispute has not raised further objections, and the other editors have reached a consensus, so the discussion seems to have closed. I was the editor who requested protection. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. SlimVirgin and his associates are pursuing a tactic of adding POV edits to all LaRouche-related pages at once, making it difficult for me to respond to all in a timely fashion. As far as I am concerned, the discussion at Political Views of Lyndon LaRouche is far from resolved. --HK 01:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then could I ask Herschelkrustofsky to concentrate on addressing the unresolved issues at Talk: Political views of Lyndon LaRouche first, please, so that the page may be unprotected? SlimVirgin 01:59, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

January 14, 2005

Eagle Scout

For some reason, I believe it's personal, someone calling themselves Sistertina keeps adding a paragraph about two kids from Chicago getting their Eagle rank. These two kids don't have any historical significance. There is no reason posted on the talk page for the changes. I'd rather not start an edit war about this. It seems to be a constant campaign by Sistertina. 4 or 5 other people have realized that the information doesn't belong in the article and have removed it.

Also, I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia, could someone explain why Sistertina has a username but no user page? Dismas 12:28, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note on Sistertina's talk page about this (the reason there's no user page is simply because Sistertina hasn't created one). I don't think protection is necessary quite yet. --Michael Snow 18:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been changed back to Sistertina's version. How long should we wait for a response from her? --Dismas 18:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Left a final warning on Sistertina's page, if s/he does not communicate s/he will be blocked for a while. silsor 19:26, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

User came back anonymously to revert after being warned, I'll try blocking for a few days. silsor 07:38, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

This turned out to be an AOL IP so it is not blockable. silsor 09:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sistertina has responded on Talk:Eagle_Scout. She seems to be determined in getting her way which, from my POV, is not a NPOV. These scouts have no significant historical impact. She also has been editing the List of Eagle Scouts to put Mr. Reed and Mr. White in that list. She also keeps taking names off of that list because, in her view, they do not live up to the Eagle Scout rank. They are Eagles who have become murderers. They have found a place in history however dubious. I'd also like to see that page protected now that I see that she has been changing that to suit her POV.

Sistertina has continued posting on List of Eagle Scouts the two names in addition to removing a murderer/rapist and a serial killer/pedophile from the list. Her justification is that the badges were forfeited when they deviated from the scouts standards and God's. here Segekihei 01:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please attempt to resolve this through dispute resolution, or try WP:RFM. If that has failed, you may attempt to take it to WP:RFAr. The page does not seem a need for protection as the user is not altering the page, unless that user is using the anonymous ips to do so. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 15, 2005

There were no requests for protection on January 15, 2005.

January 16, 2005

Enemy Territory

The entry to ET has been linked from Slashdot and has already been replaced three times by images of female genitalia. Needs to be locked.

Huns

An anonymous user insists that the article is misinformation and has vowed to keep reverting it, but has yet to explain exactly what he thinks is wrong with the article. Could someone protect the article; maybe that will get him to use the talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The user's edits are vandalism. Since he was warned on the 14th I am blocking for a day. silsor 21:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

User has returned with a new IP and continues the campaign. I'm no longer hopeful that this is anything but an ignorantly opinionated vandal, but protected the page for a few days might get him to come to the talk page, discuss his reasoning (if it exists), and cite his sources (if he's read any). —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 17, 2005

Democratic Party (United States)

Long running edit war with a user who insists on adding a variety of different POV/irrelevant/etc. edits to the article. Reverts flying fast and furious. RadicalSubversiv E 02:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 18, 2005

RickK

I believe an administrator has protected his own user page. Perhaps this is OK, perhaps not, but it should be considered by others, maybe there should be a time limit, or everyone should be able to protect their user pages or something. Even Jimbo's page is unprotected so I was puzzled about this.

Ollieplatt 08:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Where you planning to vandalize it? Or~~ is there offensive content there that should be removed? I don't see why it is your business what RickK does with his user page. Sysop pages are frequently vandalized, as they are often the first to deal with vandals. User:Anárion/sig 08:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all, curious about why it would be protected and what the rules are about that. He has not responded meaningfully to my questions about it. Just accused me of wanting to vandalize it, which is not the case. Ollieplatt 08:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, you had the correct User. It has been established that Ollieplat is a troll who uses a variety of sockpuppet accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. My User page WILL NOT be unprotected. End of discussion. [RickK's comment.]

What have I vandalized? Nothing. It was a reasonable question met with a response so unreasonable that it barely needs my response. Ollieplatt 09:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems like you're just here trying to stir up even more trouble and get more attention. There is no legitimate reason for you to have been editing with all those sockpuppets at the same time, I have cut it down to one (User:Ollieplatt). Once we have evidence in hand that you are also User:Libertas you will lose this one too. Why don't you work on making an encyclopedia for a change? silsor 09:54, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The deletion of an ifd header from an image page without discussion is vandalism. It's what made me block you the other day. Rick K 20:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence can be seen here: History, Limit 500, Page: User:RickK

As the page is already protected, I hereby support RickK's request for page protection of his User page, as it has been targetted for vandalism. More evidence that his user page would be open for vandalism can be seen from his editable talk page, where there are frequent reverts due to vandalism. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 19, 2005

Hilda Toledano

This article was created by a anonymous user and deals with an obscure person who claims to be the rightful Duke of Braganza and head of the Portuguese royal line. Since the creation of the article, me and Nunh-huh have been battling with this user who insists in inserting his POV. Recently we were joined in the cause by Derek Ross and Jtdirl. The Page history is hilarious and expresses pretty well what is going on, namely the autism of this anon user (which by the way reminds me a lot of another wiki.en user) who insists on reverting the consensus version to his own with the summary: returning stable version. Only today the page was reverted 4 times. I would like to request page protection and i'm willing to answer any doubts about this request. muriel@pt 20:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 20, 2005

Wikipedia:Half-million pool and Wikipedia:Million pool

There's no trophy. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy, the page:

is not a high-visibility page
does not contain the site's logo
is not a key copyright or license page
is not a press release
is not a system administration page
is not in the MediaWiki namespace
is not a user page or subpage thereof

Vacuum c 21:02, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need to protect Wikipedia:Half-million pool, since we have such things as watchlists and edit histories, but now that it's protected I don't see any pressing need to unprotect it either. (Wikipedia:Million pool was originally included in this request, but I removed it since it isn't protected.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not terribly important, but I feel that protecting is anti-wiki and that all protects should be subject to serious consideration. Vacuum c 23:31, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The reason that it is protected is that it was a poll. Historically, it looks like it should be static because it seems like to be a page where it represents everyone's guesses before the Wikipedia reachs a half-million articles. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We don't protect other polls, or even talk page archives. I'll unprotect unless anyone has strong objections. Cool Hand Luke 08:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd protect it after the Wikipedia gets really close to the 500,000 mark. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unprotecting, and making the closed notice larger. Cool Hand Luke 08:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 21, 2005

Charles Darwin

User:Vfp15 consistently vandalizes the article and has caused an edit war. While protection is not in the article's best interests, I request protection merely to draw administrative focus to the issue. This vandalism from User:Vfp15 must stop.

Adraeus 23:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am protecting the page until it is resolved on the discussion page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 22, 2005

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

User:MonsterOfTheLake constantly deletes edits and additions I make to the article. I consider my changes to be perfectly reasonable and an effort to bring more than one viewpoint to the subject of the article. As the article originally stood, it seemed too biased and one-sided, presenting only one point of view and omitting others.

I have listed the article as being in dispute, but User:MonsterOfTheLake regularly deletes the dispute marker.

User:MonsterOfTheLake also engages in personal insults against me in the article's discussion page, referring to me as a "moron" and other choice phrases. Other comments he places in the discussion area reveal that his motives for deleting my changes are purely political and do not reflect the desire for unbalanced truth.Bruce Cabot 17:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

This article has been repetiately vandalized in the past week. It is in serious need of being protected. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 19:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Chernobyl

User:Mikkalai is guilty of "sneaky vandalism" - Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

He has become the personal watchdog for this page and reverts all changes to suit his own persaonl opinion and agenda; namely, outright trying to hide, discredit and disassociate the very word Mugwort from it's true common name, Common Wormwood, and then all it's related biblical associations that follow.

No, I am not. In my last edit I inserted the mention of "common wormwood" the anon guy so insisited. You better read a bit before jumping at conclusions. As for "sneaky vandalism", yes, I am a personal watchdog of the page (and of about 3,000 other pages) against vandals and kooks. You have a problem whit this? Mikkalai 23:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 23, 2005

George W. Bush

I am requesting that the George W. Bush article to be protected for the purpose of vandalism, and revert edit wars. The page seems to be reverted on an hourly basis for either vandalism, or edits which are considered as POV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone second this? silsor 14:49, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded for edit war between User:MONGO, User:JamesMLane, and others. Gazpacho 08:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang

Please unprotect Template:Wikipedialang so that I can change "Gallego" to "Galego" as requested at Talk:Main Page and confirmed at gl:. —AlanBarrett 17:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes you requested. Instead of unprotecting. BrokenSegue 19:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. —AlanBarrett 19:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 24, 2005

Lyndon LaRouche

The edit war at the "Political Views" article has now spilled over into the "biography" article. Massive amounts of POV material are being injected. Please protect. --HK 03:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might not be likely to be honored; as users Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper are considered to be operated by the same person. Can you confirm this, HK? Peter O. (Talk) 04:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot. SlimVirgin is engaging in a personal attack. --HK 04:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then try logging in as "Weed Harper". It doesn't seem like a personal attack. Peter O. (Talk) 04:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The developers have confirmed that Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper are the same person. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 25, 2005

George W. Bush

From Talk:George W. Bush:

It is more apparent than ever to me that those that disagree with some of the context of this article are to be denied the opportunity of editing and that the administrator(s) pretend to open this up to a forum of discussion whereby a concensus will be reached that will result in those that are not to the extreme left and wish this article to actually be NPOV will find appeasement. Rubbish. The page is protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda. I doubt anything disussed here will result in any major improvements to this rag of an article because the administrator(s) are hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character. They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak. We can argue about the situation forever, but there is no doubt in my mind that unless you agree with the major contributors of this rag you will never get appeasement. Let's not pretend to think that we can hash things out here. Open to discussion...it's like farting in the wind.--MONGO 20:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am of the extreme left persuasion that MONGO complains about, and although I don't think the page is being protected to prevent the removal of inappropriate content, I do agree with him that there seems to be no good reason to protect the article at present. We have had the normal editing to-and-fro but no substantive warring, no digging in of heels, nobody has got anywhere near 3RR violation, and discussion has been good natured. I'm happy that MONGO and all the others editing the article are doing so in good faith and want to work together. Please can we have our page back? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Revert war between Jayjg and Palestine-info. ~~It should be noted that Jayjg has a history of ~~instigating~~ Modified to "participating in" revert wars and violating the revert guidelines~~ [30]. Kaldari 03:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the current moment, it looks like you have everything under control, Kaldari. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like they've settled down :) Kaldari 01:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roger Williams (theologian)

A lot of vandalism has been happening here lately, and it's not a very prominent page; it was erased yesterday and wasn't corrected until just a few minutes ago. Protection good. Cookiecaper 04:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks like infrequent vandalism. I disagree with the request. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 26, 2005

There were no requests for protection on January 26, 2005.

January 27, 2005

Foreskin restoration, Male circumcision, Foreskin

These three pages (and a number of related ones) have been embroiled in an ongoing edit war for months now. The page histories are a mess of reverts and counter-reverts, and the editors are unable or unwilling to reach consensus on most of the information contained in the articles, and are just as unwilling to discuss on the talk pages. I think all of these pages have been blocked before to no avail, but it's worth another try. Exploding Boy 21:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

January 28, 2005

Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War

These two articles appear to have been protected either by mistake, or without reason. There does not appear to be a request for protection listed here. There is no reason for protection given in the Edit Summaries of the articles. The admin doing the protecting has chosen not to list the articles on the Protected Page List. Please unprotect. -Rob

You know exactly why 172 protected them. You and TDC have been edit warring over these articles and caused them to be protected on at four separate occasions in the last month, and every single time the two of you manage to restart the edit war as soon as you discover they are unprotected again. silsor 04:59, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I concur based on the page history. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

~~Besides, if we did let you edit or continue your edit war, one of you, or both of you will likely be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)~~

Of course I know why 172 protected the articles just a few minutes after they get vandalized - just as he has done multiple times in the past. I never said otherwise, and the facts remain:

The articles appear to have been protected by mistake, or without reason. No reason is given.
The articles have been protected without listing them on the Protected Page List.
No one has requested the protections, nor has the 3 Revert Rule been violated, so I must assume the unexplained protections are at the whim of the admin doing the protecting.
Finally, and most importantly, if the articles have been protected at least 4 times over the past month, as you say, then perhaps it is time to get a clue: It ain't working. Might I suggest instead that the interested parties be made to raise their disagreements in a civil manner on the discussion pages, and work toward a resolution acceptable to all concerned?

Until that is done, please remove the unexplained, undocumented, unasked-for and (until someone breaks the 3-revert-rule) unwarranted protection. And as an appeal to the less self-important Admins out there that have a moment to spare, can you at least fix the spelling and grammar errors inflicted upon these two articles by the most recent reverts? Thank you. -Rob

I retract my inappropriate comment, which was supposely out of jest. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that if you feel that this protection is not warranted, that you make a case either at WP:RFM or WP:RFA. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that I concurred, was on the grounds that should the articles been left unprotected, an edit war would still continue. Even if either of you stay out of bounds of the 3RR violation, it would be just one revert after another. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the only reason I am reverting it is to prevent plagiarized material from making its way into the article. This user has been writing articles using cut and paste internet sources for quite some time, denies it when caught, argues that although the passages are exactly he same it is not plagiarism, and "graciously" decides on changing a word or two so it is not a 100% match any more. TDC 14:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the only reason TDC reverts is to prevent two-thirds of the content in the articles from appearing in print -- content which TDC variously describes as "POV," "garbage," and "bullshit" but not plagiarized. Failing to support such assertions, TDC resorts to editing quotation marks or attributions out of passages and then cleverly tries to point to those passages as plagiarism. When questioned about it, TDC avoids the discussion pages like the plague while swearing to do blind reverts ad infinitum. Very productive. -Rob

Foreskin

I concur. Robert the Bruce and Robert Blair seem to be at an edit war over the Foreskin article. History -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Male circumcision

I am uncertain whether or not this article's history is truely a mess... yet. I am going to post a warning. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration

I am going to post a warning on this article's talk page. I feel it is borderline, but if it keeps up, it needs to be protected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates

Template:Wikiquote, Template:Wikiquotepar, Template:Wiktionary, Template:Wiktionarypar, Template:Wikibooks, Template:Wikibookspar, Template:Cookbook, Template:Cookbookpar, Template:Economics, Template:Wikisource, Template:Wikisourcepar, Template:Wikisourcecat, Template:Wikisource author, Template:Commons, Template:Commonscat, Template:Wikinews, Template:Wikispecies

This is getting close to (if not already beyond) a point where me and Netoholic should be banned according to the Three-revert rule. Naturally, I don't want to be banned. Netoholic has listed Template:Sisterproject for deletion, which is fine, but he also insists on removing it from the above template, which isn't. (It goes against policy, and prevents people from understanding context.) I would like to suggest that the templates are protected when including Template:Sisterproject until the vote at at WP:TFD is over, whereupon the template will either be removed or kept. -- Itai 11:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... he's listed Template:Sisterproject for WP:TFD and he purposely removed that template from the above templates? -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, it's not like this template has been around forever, and he can say he's simply reverting to an earlier version. Then again, once listed on WP:TFD, it cannot be removed lest context is lost. -- Itai 11:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is no policy which suggests that a bad template have to be kept in place while up for TFD. Itai, rather than testing Template:Sisterproject on a few templates, created it yesterday and added it to a couple dozen very active ones. When there is dispute, the best option is to revert to the most stable version. If he just needs an example, why not just do it on one then? --

Tsunami

Receiving a lot of attention from anonymous vandals, again. - jredmond 17:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gliding action

Ongoing edit war. Has now escalated to the point where disputed messages are being removed. Please protect. - Jakew 23:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about protecting this, there is a lot of editing back and forth but it isn't just reverts, the article is changing a lot. silsor 01:21, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Now look - we've got another pair of reverts (the second at my request, because of 3RR). This always happens when this user (User:Robert Blair, but often logs out, I suspect in order to get around 3RR) gets involved. Sigh. - Jakew 01:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 29, 2005

Male circumcision

At 7:57 today, a protection warning was placed on the discussion section of this page. This said the page would be protected if "Further disruptive edits, vandalism, or an edit war in progress" occured. Thereafter, exactly one edit was made, a word choice issue that had been resolved amicably on the discussion page. Protection ensued. The notice in the protection log explains that this one done unilaterally by one admin at the personal request of one user; this user is about one fourth of the slow edit skirmishing that this article perenially experiences. Progress was being made in spite of these smirmishes. Unprotection would demonstrate wikifaith. Shimmin 05:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

That user seems to think that this page is in need of a rewrite. A quick glance at the history shows this article has been the subject of a long, long, long standing NPOV dispute, and has been repeatedly protected and reverted. I think he's got a point, so yes, I protected this page and linked to a work-in-progress subpage. This is not uncommon in cases such as this. →Raul654 06:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yet, that user has not even begun the rewrite at the temp page. I find it disturbing, and a demonstration of lack of wikifaith, that the request of a single user should trump the terms of the protection warning, which said, "The Wikipedia would like to Assume good faith, and ask editors to calmly and rationally approach a resolution before the article is protected." Exactly when was time given for this process to be carried out?

The user who wants the rewrite is one of about four users (two on each side) who in my opinion are chiefly responsible for the slow-cooking edit war surrounding this article. I see no reason to believe that a rewrite initiative driven by that user will solve the problem. Or is the goal indefinite protection?

As a controversial topic, this article will probably always suffer from constant edit skirmishing, minus a rewrite by a genius of neturality. The user in question is not a genius of neutrality on this particular issue, as a glance at the article talk page will show. I understand that protection can give a chance for tempers to cool, and cooler heads to prevail, yet this has not worked any time this article has been protected in the past, and if any things, protection has merely caused cooler heads to become frustrated and walk away.

If the problem is frequent reversions, protection is a singularly inappropriate response, since it not only reverts everything done to this article in the last several months, but preemptively reverts anything anyone might have to say to improve the article. In a sense, this protection violates the three-revert rule by at least an order of magnitude. Shimmin 13:33, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed this is an absolute shocker. Not only have Raul654 and Exploding Boy effectively hijacked the article but the same has been done on Foreskin restoration where another POV zealot has taken to editing a new version. Where is the policy that allows for this arbitary action, where was the discussion, where is the consensus? This is a disgrace and should be reversed immediately. - Robert the Bruce 19:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will note, that Raul654, decided to protect the article... not long after I posted the warning. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very amusing analysis. The temp page was created to deal with just the issues you bring up, and you seem to be complaining about my not immediately rushing over to edit that page, yet I'm sure if I had immediately done so there'd be more complaints about my trying to push my supposed point of view. Why don't you go and get things started? Exploding Boy 17:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can't be online 24 hours a day, but I've made a start. Please contribute at [[31]]. Exploding Boy 17:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

January 30, 2005

Iglesia Ni Cristo

There was an obviously POV revert done to this page recently deleting links to viewpoints opposing the church in the article and questions made about its teachings. I restored the page to an earlier version, but being a former member of this organization, I know that members will come and edit this article so that it becomes POV in favor of the Church without any balance whatsoever.

I humbly request protection on this page as to preserve neutrality.

Who are you? You can sign your posts using ~~~~. Why does this page need to be protected? It was edited twice on Jan. 30 by the same person; before that it hadn't been edited since Jan. 14. silsor 19:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a registered user that wants to remain anonymous. This will turn into a tit-for-tat editing war if that person comes back and turns the article back into POV.

Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. Snowspinner 22:39, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Safavids

I request page protection for the Safavids untill my dispute with the user Pantherarosa is solved. Please, refer to the Safavids talk page and [Safavids page history] for details.--Tabib 15:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is protection necessary in order for the two of you to resolve your dispute? silsor 19:16, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I requested page protection in order to stop edit war by Pantherarosa. Currently, I am trying to solve the dispute through talk page, but I desperately need interference by other users, preferably with knowledge of the isue and free from Persian (and for this reason) Turkic bias. --Tabib 11:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Iraq Liberation Act

Ongoing revert war between User:TDC and at least 2 other users. TDC has reverted at least four times in the past three hours. Discussion page comments and edit summaries appear to have degenerated to personal attacks. Temporary page protection requested.

User:TDC has been blocked for the next 24 hours so I don't know if this prote4ction is needed right now. BrokenSegue 20:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

Who are you? You can sign your comments with ~~~~. silsor 21:04, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia editor. Any further information about me to which you are entitled may be obtained by viewing the history tab for this page. I can also sign my comments with... -Rob

The first post was made by 63.206.233.100 and the second by 209.86.253.218. BrokenSegue 00:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

January 31, 2005

There were no requests for protection on January 31, 2005.

February 1, 2005

Arthur Schopenhauer

There is a continuous edit war about Schopenhauer being German or not, and if his birthplace Gdansk can also be listed as Danzig. Working on a compromise, block is needed to stop the edit war until compromise is found. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:53, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Medical analysis of circumcision

Ongoing edit war. Please protect. - Jakew 15:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected -- Chris 73 Talk 04:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

February 2, 2005

Arthur Schopenhauer

Ongoing revert war. Discussion on the talk page so far fruitless. Please protect the page. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:11, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

February 3, 2005

There were no requests for protection on February 3, 2005.

February 4, 2005

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Article is suffering from repeated vandalism over the last three days, judging by the language used probably by a group of school kids. Although their changes are being reverted, this still leaves the article in a vandalised state for a significant proportion of the time. A short term protection ought to exceed their attention span, and resolve the problem. -- Chris j wood 00:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Last ~~questionable~~ Modified to "vandalizing" edit more than 12 hours ago. Maybe it has died down, or maybe it is just bedtime for small kids wherever they are. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I have protected the article. I feel that this might suffer continous vandalism over the course of Black History month. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress

Three edits by IPs in 24 hours to remove Renee Zellwegger with a bogus entry. It's pointless, stupid and annoying. Perhaps a 48 or 72 hour protection will drive the person away from doing it. Cburnett 04:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very slow edit war, about one anon contribution per day. Not sure if protection is needed, simple revert may be easier. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's not really an edit war; the change is provably wrong. I'd wager it's the same person doing it (most certainly the last two). I'm just guessing that the next time this dude tries and sees it's protected, he might give up. Meh. Cburnett 07:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, protected. However, it definitely should be unprotected before February 27 for this years ceremony. (see List of Academy Awards ceremonies) -- Chris 73 Talk 07:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

3 RV's in 24 hrs by rotating IP's trying to add a line and link; HIGHLY DISPUTED on the talk page. Anonymous user(s) have not satisfactorily justified edits. --albamuth 05:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2003 Invasion of Iraq

This page was protected over an issue that was amicably resolved (or at least dropped) not long after the page was resolved. There were some unsupported statements in the article and they have now been investigated. Could we have our page back, please? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

please protect because of vandalism

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups

Thanks, antifinnugor 11:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

see here. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should probably be made clear that the user requesting the protection is the one who has just been prohibited from editing the article, which prohibition he has violated. Mk270 15:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User Dbachman, who wandalized the page, has an ongoing arbitration procedure because of vandalization of articles in this subject. see: [[32]] antifinnugor 18:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not an arbitration procedure, this is simply a page you yourself started. If you want arbitration, you need to submit this at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Michael Snow 20:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 5, 2005

2003 invasion of Baghdad

I would like to request that this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Baghdad Please keep my information regarding the number of Iraqi civilians. Another user as deleted my information when in fact my information is clearly correct. Disputed information is below

U.S. media repeatedly showed images of crowds of Iraqi civilians cheering as the statue was toppled. The presentation implied that hundreds or thousands of people were involved, though wide shots of the plaza showed no more than about a hundred. [6] However that photo was later proven to be taken sometime after the event. As this photo linked here during the event http://www.right-thinking.com/images/uploads/statue_debunk.jpg clearly shows hundreds more.

As you can see by my link I have proven my case beyond reasonable doubt. Photo linked here also shows many Iraqis not in Information Clearing House photo

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/09/sprj.irq.war.main/

Look past the pillars in photo and you can see crouds outside of pillars not in both of our photos.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/galleries/statue/11.htm

Again the proof...first his website http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

The person who put this together knew that they were fooling people. They purposely rearanged the web cam photos to make it appear as if "Picture 2" ( Linked here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/SQ2.gif ) occured during the event. When in fact it occured sometime after.

Note in his photo, the statue and the group that followed the head down the street are long gone. http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1223477&nav=5D7iF88p Please again see picture proving your incorrect. The times article is not show otherwise. http://www.right-thinking.com/images/uploads/statue_debunk.jpg

We won't protect a page just so that it can have one version over another. This belongs on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, not on requests for page protection. Would you like me to set that up for you? silsor 19:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at that page history, you were only reverted the first time, when you removed the paragraph about the first photo. The second time you edited the article, you added a paragraph about the second photo, and have not been reverted. I don't think this needs to be here or on Requests for Comment. silsor 19:44, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick feedback, I guess I was just hoping to protect my information in case he tries to change it again. If futher problems occur I will seek the proper route. Thanks again. I am still learning and I LOVE your site!

Template:Wikiquotepar

Please unprotect. A constructive discussion is presently going on at Template talk:Sisterproject, and there is no reason to keep it protected. (No harm in doing so either, but why protect when you don't have to?) — Itai (f&t) 21:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree, please unprotect it. -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Three articles

Three articles: Foreskin, Foreskin restoration and Circumcision are currently protected. A dubious decision has been made to revert to a very old version prior to protection. This revert has resulted in the articles presented being of much lower quality. No attempt was made to discuss this revert with the editors concerned.

I do not object to protection, but I do object to this revert, and would like to request that a Wikipedia:Two versions notice is placed at the start of the articles concerned. The alternative versions are: foreskin, foreskin restoration and circumcision. - Jakew 23:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 6, 2005

List of military disasters

Already a revert war of whether the Iraq war was or wasn't a military disaster. Andros 1337 01:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a full revert war in progress. This page is not requests for comment. Please follow through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Page protection should only be requested when you can not assume good faith. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, GCarty did not re-add the Iraqi war. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University

I am requesting that the Ohio Wesleyan University Page be protected. After considerable Wikipedia community interaction the recent NPOV heading was removed because it was felt that the article had stablized and brought more in line with NPOV standards. Unfortunatly user:Pnikolov is again beginning to remove and adjust facts to suit his personal version of what is right and correct, which has dominated this article since last fall and keeps pulling the article in a direction to suit one person and his view, not NPOV. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 03:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As there is no revert war in progress, since both of you have taken upon yourselves to take it to the talk pages, I see no reason why the page should be protected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No revert war, but over the past several weeks we have worked hard to get the article to a NPOV state, and now its been edited to Plamen's liking, not facts. Again, I'm just trying to ensure that entry is factual and correct for everyone, not just one persons feelings. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 00:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that the page is no longer NPOV, replace the NPOV template and discuss your problems on the talk page. Then remove non-factual material. No need for protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this thing, OWU's Communication Department is going to visit the article and make appropriate changes and monitor the edits in the future. I'll take my problem with the other user over to Arbitration and see if we can end this cycle and move onto more productive topics. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 22:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

user: stude62 & His lies

I apologize if my comments do not belong on this page but I figured they may be relevant for other people to see after they read Stude62's comments. Stude62's behavior is outragous. User Stude62 says "Pnikolov is again beginning to remove and adjust facts to suit his personal version". I urge everyone to go and see Ohio Wesleyan University's page and the edits by user Pnikolov. Pnikolov's last edits are additions to OWU's majors. This is not information that is subjective by anyone's standards. It is obvious that Stude62 are outright lies! I wonder why he does it, though...:((

Rananim 04:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You make it sound as if you and Pnikolov are not the same person. silsor 05:43, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

February 7, 2005

Anarchism

Anarchism should be unprotected. There are only two people making the "National-Anarchism" edits, sometimes reverting more than three times per day, so if hard security is to be used (it shouldn't be), someone should block them when they violate the 3RR. Guan aco 03:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Has it truly cooled down? -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It never was "hot". There are and only have been two people, both anonymous, pushing for this "national-anarchist" link. Guan aco 17:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting. Assume good faith -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Avant Browser

Please protect Avant Browser. One user (User:Brandeks) constantly adds back the advertising blurb from the Avant Browser website, and is refusing to use the article talk or his own talk. Additionally, he marks all his changes as minor while they clearly are not. Brandeks just removes comments from his talk page: [33]. User:Anárion/sig 20:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damon Carr

Damon Carr is pending deletion as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Damon Carr, but content keeps being restored by User:Damon Carr and anons (presumably the same user). There are several other articles by the same author(s) which also may be considered vanity, but a new VFD listing should probably be created for these. sjorford:// 23:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 8, 2005

Gdansk

Pls protect the Gdansk article. Chris_73 started an edit-war.--Emax 03:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Haven't we settled the wording on this like five times already? silsor 03:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the wording never stays settled because people like Emax never accept it. john k 04:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So ... two reverts of mine now constitute an edit war? -- Chris 73 Talk 04:11, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Emax, try resolving your dispute on the talk page first. I do not agree with this page protection. Do not use WP:RFPP to prove a point. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats not my dispute - John Keney did not acceptable changes in the article, and Chris started the edit war.--Emax 13:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote should settle a lot of the questions and disputes. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress

Please remove temporary protection. I requested it to be protected because of an anonymous user changing a winner to something blatantly wrong. Perhaps the 4 day protection has driven away the anonymous user. Cburnett 20:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 9, 2005

Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Please Unprotect these two articles. These two articles have remained protected for almost two weeks while discussions (see Talk pages for each article) have concluded long ago. Some of us would like to resume productive editing. -Rob 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am hesistant to unprotect this. -- AllyUnion (talk) 01:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would you please share the reasoning behind your hesitancy? -Rob 02:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why? With no pending arbcom cases or other action, the only resolution seems to come through letting the articles go. I'll unprotect both in a bit. Snowspinner 03:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

~~Please do not unprotect these articles. They have been unprotected four times in the last month for the same reason - inactivity - and each time the edit war started immediately.~~ Go ahead and unprotect, I want to see what happens. silsor 04:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your concern is warranted, Silsor. When one party tries to initiate discussions, and the other party refuses to discuss at all (see the latest entries on both Talk pages), no resolutions can be reached. However, I don't feel repeatedly protecting and unprotecting the articles moves us any closer to problem resolution. -Rob 06:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know what, I am prepared to assume good faith. If I find out that these articles had to be protected again, I will file a WP:RFAr for misconduct of Wikipedia's policies. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...and I'll be right there in support of your filing, AllyUnion. -Rob 06:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That goes the same for you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 10, 2005

Halo 2

This page is undergoing a revert war between myself and John-1107. So far, the only response I have been able to get out of him is a rather nonsensical non sequitor on his talk page, and a minor derogatory remark on his talk page. I would really like a third party to help out here, but since no one responded to my request for comment, I'd like the page protected in the meanwhile.

--Khaim 03:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I missed the RfC. I'll attend to the dispute on the Halo 2 talk page. Please do not protect for the time being. Snowspinner 03:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

PL/I & PHP-Nuke

These pages are the site of daily attacks of adverts.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is the PHP spambot, spreading to other pages. These pages will probably have to remain protected indefinitely, I'm afraid. -- Curps 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

There is currently an edit war going on over whether the image of a a man performing autofellatio should be turned into a link. There is also a poll on the talk page over this; however, some users are jumping the gun, taking action while the poll and related discussion are still going strong. Could the page be protected on a version with the image shown inline? --Carnildo 06:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 11, 2005

Autofellatio

An edit war broke out a couple of days ago on this page over a disagreement on whether the image should be linked or inlined. There is, and was then, an ongoing poll on the subject on the talk page, but no consensus has yet been reached (about 57% are for linking). The page was protected after a request was raised here.

I would like protection to be removed now that they have had time to cool down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 12, 2005

Help:Contents

Unprotect request
The recent protection frenzy (Main page items, etc.) is going too far. While this page has been vandalised by a few repeated offenders, there is no call for long-term protection of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

I protected it just a short time ago. It was being vandalized by multiple anon AOL IP addresses, which can't be blocked for long as per guidelines.

How long should it stay protected? Well, any admin can go ahead and unprotect it, but look at the history: there have been only 2-3 very minor actual edits in the past 2 1/2 months: changing "formulas" to "formulae", one link added, and the cs: interwiki link was broken (vandalized?) and that's about it. Everything else has been vandalism and reverts. The page is a vandalism magnet, and is highly visited by newbies. When will we see goatse on it? Protection makes almost as much sense as protecting the main page. Probably most of the few legitimate edits are done by admins anyway.

In the meantime, at least wait till the AOL "I need to take a dump" vandals go away before unprotecting it. -- Curps 04:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The protection policy does not cover your decision. There are pages that are vandalised many times a day, and are kept unprotected. This is hit far less often, and, like any page, quickly repaired. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

He's right in temp protecting it, we generally can't block AOL IPs for more than an hour or so. silsor 05:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

The edit summary ("Protected; only 2-3 actual very small content edits in last 2 1/2 months; all else vandalism and reverts. Restore broken cs: link") doesn't seem to indicate this is only temporary measure. From the wording, it seems more like the intent was for it to be permanent measure. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

2 1/2 months was a typo, actually 1 1/2 months. Sorry about my edit summary, I was just editorializing there, which caused a misunderstanding. But you know every protection is a temporary measure to the extent that any other admin can unprotect. Perhaps I should have mentioned AOL in the edit summary instead, but it's not a good idea to let AOL vandals know that our options for blocking them are limited. -- Curps 08:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. I agree with the temp protect, but that group should have moved on by now. (Aside: I like having a vandalism magnet that is on about 400 watchlists. Random vandalism might go unnoticed for a while, but vandalism magnets make it easier and quicker to identify the vandals.) SWAdair | Talk 07:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, by that logic we should unprotect the main page too, it would make an even more effective vandalism magnet :-) The Help page is one of the first things a newbie will click on, long before they understand the concept of "anybody can edit", so they can get a very bad first impression of Wikipedia and permanently turn away. And if it changes so rarely, the disadvantages of protection might be outweighed by "kindness to newbies". Reverts don't always happen quickly... the last one before I protected took 31 minutes. But anyway, the AOLers have gone away so everything seems OK now. -- Curps 08:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Germany

I keep getting mass reverted by User:Heimdal, who has so far ignored my requests to tell me exactly what he thinks is wrong with my edits. He has simply called them "vandalism". I am trying to cut down the ridiculous size of the article and format it according to the Manual of style and WikiProject Countries. a misguided newbie? I hope page protection will encourage some discussion since simply asking for discussion isnt working. --Ji ang 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recommend protection for 2 weeks. And thus, I shall be protecting the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~I would like to request unprotection of Germany article so as to revert the removal of single article sections (such as the one on German foreign affairs) by Jiang.Heimdal 15:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~

Jiang has freely admitted himself that he knows virtually nothing about Germany. I therefore question his qualification for "cleaning up" the whole article. I would let Saintswithin do the job - at least he lives in Germany, knows the language, and is not as totally ignorant of Germany as Jiang.Heimdal

On second thought, let's keep the banner in place. Let's give Jiang this little satisfaction of preventing others from editing the article. In two weeks or so the protection should expire anyway. Until then Jiang may have found another toy to undo.--Heimdal 17:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang is an excellent editor who has put incredible amounts of work into standardizing and cleaning up the various country articles. Please do not insult him or his contributions. Snowspinner 19:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I did not admit that I know "virtually nothing about Germany". I said my geographical ___location and personal travel experiences are irrelevant to me editing the article--I was formatting and not adding content. Even then, such qualifications are irrelevant.

Will you agree to a truce? If you don't touch the article, then I won't? then we lift the protection to allow others to edit it? --Ji ang 21:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The protection will not expire automatically in two weeks. It will expire when serious attempt at discussion has been made. Attacking me for not being from Germany, having never been there, etc. and therefore not having a right to edit the article is not serious discussion. Everyone, please refer to Talk:Germany#Cleanup_-_shorten_this_article to see the dispute. --Ji ang 19:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~Jiang, you can't block the Germany article indefinitely. Once the protection expires, I'll revert your silly, ignorant edits, you can be sure of that. ---Heimdal 19:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~

I shall not be involving myself further in the protection or unprotection of this article. I leave it to another administrator to whether it needs unprotection at the end of the two week suggested period. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, I apologize to you for my past rudeness. I was just very upset, since I believe that Jiang does not deserve your protection. Please compare his version of the Germany article with my version. Some points:

In the History chapter, and without asking anyone first, Jiang wiped out the paragraph about the Holy Roman Empire - although he chose to left stay the related image of the prince-electors, which looks very awkward now.
In the same History chapter, Jiang changed the title "German Empire" into "Imperial Germany" (whatever that means), although "German Empire" is the English equivalent of Deutsches Reich, and there are articles under that name on the Wikipedia.
In the Politics chapter, Jiang changed my title "Parliament" over the section about the Bundestag and the Bundesrat into "Government", despite the fact that the related paragraph is in fact about the German parliament, not the government. Never mind that in a parliamentary democracy, there is a difference between parliament and government. In the Japan article, for instance, the piece about the parliament is rightly entitled "The Diet", NOT "Government".
In the same Politics chapter, Jiang removed the paragraph about "Foreign affairs", rechristened it "Foreign relations" and put it behind the "Economy" chapter, of all places.
In the Japan article, the "Economy" chapter is carefully structured into sections about the agricultural, the industrial and the service sector. I structured the "Economy" chapter in the Germany article likewise, with four subsections entitled "Agriculture, fishery", "Industrial sector", "Service sector" and "Natural resources". Jiang dissolved all subsections.
In the Japan article, there is a chapter called "Society". I copied the idea. Jiang dissolved the chapter and all subsections.

Put briefly, Jiang has made such a mess of the Germany article that it hurts! - Heimdal 10:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one being protected or deserving protection. I asked this article be protected for the sake of dispute resolution and I will see to it that it remains protected until this is resolved.

I believe there are some fundamental misunderstandings that have cause unnecessary hard feelings here. I mentioned some of these misunderstandings at Talk:Germany. I will repeat some of them here:

I did not take out the paragraph on the Holy Roman Empire. Please take a closer look. I merged the "Holy Roman Empire" and "German Empire" section under the heading "Imperial Germany".
I did not simply change "German Empire" and "Imperial Germany" as explained previously. It was a merge of two sections.
I did not simply change "Parliament" to "Government" in the politics section. I merged the "Introduction", "Parliament", "Head of State" and "Federal Constitutional Court" sections into a single section on government structure.
The move of the "foreign affairs" section was made following repeated consultations on the talk page, and repeated requests for comment on the talk page. I have made my rationale clear there. So far no one has bothered to discuss them
As I posted on Talk:Germany, the subsections in the economy sections did not have enough content to have their own headers. Just because it is done wrong in the Japan article is no excuse.
As I posted on Talk:Germany, we need should be looking wikiproject countries rather than Japan as a guide. If there is a consensus to differ, then that is permitted. However, there is no consensus to change things and my repeated requests for reasons behind using a different format have fallen silent.

Unfortunately, Heimdal has just posted on Talk:Germany "I'm ready to compromise with you over the structure of the article, but not over the text." Again, he has again ignored requests to discuss my points on specific disputes of content. This is despite the near-consensus, expressed by not only myself but Saintswithin, gidonb, Johan Magnus, and Ruhrjung (that's 5 to 1, not considering quality of argument) that the history article needs to be drastically shortened. Unfortunately, the Heimdal's position that there can be no compromise over content, despite counter-opinions and counter-arguments, and refusal to discuss the specific issue and weigh each of these changes rationally makes it impossible for us to arrive at a resolution through discussion. Regrettably, this article must be protected indefinitely until Heimdal expresses willingness to act otherwise or this is resolved further through the wikipedia:dispute resolution proceedings.--Ji ang 12:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, but in a democracy like Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court is not - I repeat NOT - part of the "government structure", but of the judiciary. Only in dictatorial systems like the People Republic of China's are the government and the judiciary one and the same thing. And it's just plain wrong to merge the Holy Roman Empire with the German Empire under one the title called "Imperial Germany", because at the time of Charlemagne, something like "Germany" didn't even exist yet. Besides, who are you to decide what is right and what is wrong (see your comment above about the Japan article). In view of your obvious ignorance about all things German, shouldn't you be a bit more modest instead? - Heimdal 12:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are good points and I acknowledge them. Posting stuff like this is all I ask for. When you post "government structure", do you mean executive branch? A judicial branch is still part of the government, I presume? It's just not executive. Please take this further at Talk:Germany. --Ji ang 12:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I specifically stated that I would not involve myself any further in the protection or the unprotection of this article. And I shall not. However, I accept your apology, and I apologize if any of my comments were read as an insult. Please bare in mind that I am doing my best to assist you by providing alternative solutions. The whole Germany Wikipedia comment was a suggestion on the fact that we have other Wikipedia projects in different languages, and their community may differ greatly from the English Wikipedia. I would like you to stay with the Wikipedia project, even though it may not be the English one. However, I am glad you have decided to stay and cooperate with the other editors. Just remember, we are not mind readers and we can not read beyond the texts of what is posted here. If you are angry at something, and if you do not express why, we have no way to really help you. Being stubborn and saying nothing doesn't help us try to help you achieve a solution that works the best between people. I have worked with Jiang, nearly getting into an edit war myself over Template:University of California several months ago when I first joined the Wikipedia. However I found that Jiang is an outstanding Wikipedian who is a open, willing, and compromising individual that is willing to listen what you have a problem about, and likes to see any issues resolved from the article. As you can see, Jiang has expressed a willingness to help you and would like to know what you have a problem with. I hope that you and Jiang can come to some kind of agreement over the article such that any issues with the article is resolved. Please keep in mind of the Wikipedia's policies, and remember that we're hear to build a neutral point of view encyclopedia, not to bruise egos, ideals, or beliefs. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, thanks for your reply. Jiang asked me above whether "a judicial branch is still part of the government". My reply is: NO. Because in a democracy, including the United States, there is the principle of the separation of powers between the government and the judiciary. I'm surprised that, as a student at the University of California, Jiang doesn't know this himself. Unfortunately, Jiang is preventing me from correcting the mess that he has made of the Germany article. Apart from that - if he believes that the structure of the Japan article is "wrong", why doesn't he put a "cleanup" banner above that page, remove all the subsections, and ask someone to protect his edits, as he has done with the Germany article? Best wishes. - Heimdal 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know my government and politics very well, mind you. There's no point in personally attacking me. I don't know what definition you're using for "government", but in the US, the government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The courts, in their role of enforcing and interpreting laws, are indeed part of the government. Of course, there's a secondary definition for parliamentary systems meaning the PM and his ministers, but it should be obvious, in context, which definition we're using. Even if we use the secondary definition, we would not be putting the entire parliament under it.

I asked you kindly to reply to my changes, and even outlined them for you. Simply calling them a "mess" won't help any of us understand what is your beef with my edits. If I happen to be wrong or misleading, like with the use of "Imperial Germany", then I'd like to know. For the record, Heimdal posted on my talk page "I do not even intend to discuss with you any further, as long as you keep the article blocked." Unfortunately, trying to resolve our differences through simple discussion isnt working. --Ji ang 01:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I know that in English (but not in German!), "Government" can mean as much as "the State". But then, it might have been better if you would have changed the title of the chapter "Politics" into "Government", or "Government and Politics". But to place "Government" (meaning "the State" here) as a subsection of "Politics" doesn't make any sense. If "Government" means "the State", what does "Politics" mean then: the "Super-State"? That's the problem: your edits are half-baked, they are not carefully thought through. They should never have deserved protection in the first place. - Heimdal 12:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My edits were not being protected in the first place. Please refer to the protection policy as has been outlined to you by AllyUnion. Protection is meant to facilitate discussion, not favor a particular version. I am not calling you a vandal.

I partially agree with you, but what applies for Germany applies for all other countries. I was simply following the template, which calls for the section to be named "politics" instead of "government and politics". My edits are not "half-baked" (again, please cut the personal attacks). They are made in accordance to established policies and conventions. There was debate over the naming of this section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#.22Politics.22_heading_is_missleading. You are free to reopen this discussion to change the overal standard, but we should remain consistent.

Poltics does not mean "super-state". It means "1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. 2. Political science. 3. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party 4. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government." [34] So government can be considered a subset of politics, but politics is not limited to government, it also centers around the personalities and conventions of government. The current setup does make sense based on my understanding of the term. --Ji ang 17:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I received this note on my talk page "Jiang, I prefer to wait until your protection request expires. That should be next Tuesday or Wednesday. First thing I'll do is to revert the mess you've made of the article and give the whole thing a shorter structure. Then let's hear what the others have to say about it. Mediation can wait. I'm sure that no person in his or her right mind would prolong the protection of your confused edits any further. - Heimdal 15:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)" (emphasis mine)

As I am threatening to be mass reverted, the protection should not expire. I would appreciate it if another admin would confirm this because Heimdal is using the notion that protection will somehow "expire" in two weeks to stall any discussion posting (again on my talk page) "I do not even intend to discuss with you any further, as long as you keep the article blocked." --Ji ang 17:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have not joined the Wikipedia to take orders from Jiang. I think I have made sufficiently clear above why I believe that Jiang's edits are faulty, and why they should never have deserved protection in the first place. I have offered him a compromise - that I will shorten the article's structure, if he in turn agrees that the text itself will not be shortened - which he refused. First he threatened to block the article indefinitely if I didn't comply to his wishes, now he is even threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. What kind of coercion am I to expect next. Sorry but I have to leave now, because unlike Jiang, I don't have the time to spend the whole day in front of the computer. - Heimdal 17:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 13, 2005

Wikipedia:Community Portal

As you may know, Community Portal has been getting vandalised non-stop lately, nearly everyday. Some registered users vandalised the page, but are one-timers. The majority of the vandalism comes from unregistered users. I have a feeling there is a reason it hasn't been protected already, as some administrators have reverted some vandalisms, hence they have already seen it.

User 195.229.241.183 contributed, and has a history of vandalism, as shown here. --Lan56 04:54, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

There does seem to be opposition to protecting it, see below re: Help:Contents. -- Curps 06:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be protected temporary, to deal with vandalism, but unprotected later when it is appropriate to unprotect it after the vandalism has cool down for a while. Otherwise, the page could go up at WP:MVP. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 14, 2005

Autofellatio

Edit warring has broken out over deletion of some external links.

Posted by User:Tony Sidaway. Lots of reverts, not sure if i should protect though. BrokenSegue 22:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a compromise has been made, based on the edit history -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my call seems to have been premature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 15, 2005

There were no requests for protection on February 15, 2005.

February 16, 2005

University of California, Los Angeles

An edit war has been simmering since December 2004 between myself and some anonymous troll who keeps logging in from several SBC Pacific Bell DSL IP addresses (which means it's almost impossible to block him), and is quite recognizable from the page history because he clearly does not know how to use the preview feature (so it takes him six edits to do what an experienced user can do in one). This guy keeps editing out several key facts which I keep having to reinsert.

For example, I've had to reinsert four times the interesting fact that it is interesting that UCLA has its own UCLA-branded on-campus hotel in light of the fact that UCLA does not have a hotel or hospitality program. In my edit summaries, I keep inviting this clown to discuss this point (and others) on the edit page, but no response yet.

So, if any admins are reading this, please protect the page for a week or so. I just went through and edited it once again so that it has the information I'd like to have in there, and all the other users' style, spelling, and grammar errors have been cleaned up (for now). Hopefully this troll will back off, or at least open a discussion on the talk page so we can negotiate our differences as what the content of the UCLA page should be.

--Coolcaesar 08:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that you need to do more research my friend. I did a google search for the words, "UCLA" and "Hotel". My search turned up this website: UCLA Guest House. Apparently, the guest house is a 61-room hotel on campus. Call it what you will, it is still 61 rooms where people can rent to stay the night, which by definition is a hotel or motel, or whatever. Perhaps you should do a bit more research yourself. Until you have confirmed all the facts, I don't think that protection is necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I already know that that the UCLA Guest House is a hotel. If you had read my message more carefully, you would have seen that's what I said! I am totally aghast.

Let me try again. This time I will go step-by-step through my reasoning. I was hoping to avoid having to explain this in such excruciating detail, but here goes.

1. I've said it once, I'll say it again: I ALREADY KNOW that UCLA has a Guest House which is a 61-room full-service hotel. In fact, if you trace the convoluted history of the edit war, you would see that I was the user who inserted that entire section about the guest house in the first place. It is very strange for a public university to have an on-campus hotel because such an enterprise competes directly against private facilities, and so I noticed the Guest House right away when I first started attending UCLA. I have visited the Guest House several times for various events and meetings, though I have not stayed overnight there.

2. Some universities, like Cornell, have hotel management schools where people actually go to get professional degrees in hotel management. Many of these schools are attached to working hotels, so that the students can get experience on-the-job, just as many medical schools are attached to teaching hospitals.

3. If you had read my text more carefully rather than skimming it (see close analysis), you would have realized that the clause "hotel or hospitality" modifies the noun "program."

4. The point is that UCLA has a hotel, but it does not have an academic hospitality program, like Cornell, that teaches people how to run a hotel. That is, the employees of the hotel are just ordinary working stiffs, and are not being groomed to become senior hotel chain executives. The most logical place to house such a program would the Anderson School of Management, but I checked and they do not have any such program.

5. This fact is worth mentioning in the article because UCLA is supposed to serve its students and faculty in its dual roles a public land-grant school and a public research university. With their special educational status which makes them largely tax-exempt, public universities are not supposed to be operators of commercial enterprises that have very little to do with their academic programs. For example, that's why they usually license drug patents to private companies, rather than manufacture drugs themselves and sell directly to the public. None of the other UC campuses operate such a hotel facility, let alone as a direct part of their own bureaucracy (although UC Davis tried and failed to build one in a joint venture with a private developer).

6. The anonymous user keeps editing out this interesting fact, that UCLA has a hotel but doesn't have a linked program to teach people how to operate a hotel, and refuses to engage me on the talk page. That is why I am requesting temporary protection for the page.

--Coolcaesar 22:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My apologize, your sentence wasn't clear initially. It was too much of a run-on so I didn't understand it very well. Protecting the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 17, 2005

Canadian Alliance of Student Associations

User:Spinboy is removing a factual list of schools that belong to CASA and those that have left without giving any justification for his action. AndyL 04:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Creation biology

An edit war has now commenced between User:Ungtss and myself over an inclusion of part the article that I think violates NPOV. I tried to pseudoprotect, but User:Ungtss has decided to continue to revert and readd the disputed material. Joshuaschroeder 04:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the purpose of protection is to facilitate the resolution of edit wars. since protection, scroeder has made minimal efforts to propose anything substantive -- a great contrast to the flurry of reverts he seemed to have time for before the page became protected on his preferred version. schroeder is certainly free to have a life of his own -- i only ask that the development of wikipedia articles not depend on him fitting it into his schedule. please unprotect the page. Ungtss 05:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the protected version was exactly anyone's 'preferred version'. At least for my money, several creationist POV issues remained. Rather, there was a revert war going on over one section in particular, and I'm not certain it won't just resume if page protection is removed at this point. 'Minimal efforts' is not an apt characterisation; JS has redrafted the article, which Ungtss has also objected to as being 'from scratch' - can't have it both ways, is he proposing too much, or too little? In my judgement, there may be some merit in continuing to craft a jointly acceptable version in the sub-page, at least 'til we get to the 'yeah, that works as a general structure' point. (Then we can resume squabbling over the detail again on the 'real page'.) Alai 05:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<I don't think the protected version was exactly anyone's 'preferred version'. At least for my money, several creationist POV issues remained.>>

absolutely. and while the page remains protected, we can't fix those either. but this page was certainly preferred by schroeder -- it's what he wanted, and it's what he got. Ungtss 05:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<<is he proposing too much, or too little?>>

too much in that he's proposing we completely scrap what we have. too little in that he's not replacing it with anything more substantive or clear, but rather a stripped down version of significantly lower quality he drafted up after 4 days of doing nothing, and absent the reasoning behind the creationist ideas, which mr. schroeder refers to as "pov justifications." Ungtss 05:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is my suggestion, after reading all these comments, that you take your own self restraint and not revert the article. That, you should make all attempts to ask Joshuaschroeder and justify his edits, as well as question whether or not it is in line of a Neutral Point of View. If Joshuaschroeder does not clarify to you why the article or section(s) need to be this way, then you can try a Wikipedia:Request for comment. If that fails, look at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process and continue from there. If the article is in line with Joshuaschroeder's view, then this suggests that it isn't NPOV. Try to approach a resolution rationally and calmly, and remind Joshuaschroeder of the neutral point of view policy of the Wikipedia: That the article should attempt to present either all sides points of view or a neutral one. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks for looking things over for us. i'll take your advice. what's the criterion for getting unprotected? schroeder's approval? Ungtss 14:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When there is evidence on the talk page that all editors are satistified and would very much perfer the article to be unprotected to continue on. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement of Conformity. I state that I am happy as the short version article stands now. I would like to declare that Joshuaschroeder has not yet agreed to the concept of a short version article and for my part should not feel pressured to do so if he has reservations about it. Awaiting opinions of the rest of editors and if a reasonable consensus exist, particularly between Joshuaschroeder and Ungtss both originators of the dispute, then we can make a collective request to remove the protection. --LexCorp 17:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree to the "short version" idea, but not to the actual content. I have posted my rebuttal attempt at an edit and if accepted I would agree to the idea of removing page protection. Joshuaschroeder 22:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There now appears to be a concordance agreement on the talkpage. I move that protection be rescinded. Joshuaschroeder 17:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Alai 17:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Ungtss 17:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also concur--LexCorp 20:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Supercentenarian

User 12.144.5.2 (Louis Epstein) continues to destroy the works of others on this article, particularly the "TABLES" formatting. The vast majority of users prefer formatted tables, but Mr. Epstein--who hypocritically has his own tables listed at www.grg.org, claims tables are "superfluous." Mr. Epstein refuses to listen or respect the opinions of others. He refuses to use spaces properly, creating much work for others to do. He is anti-Yahoo, anti-Microsoft, anti-airliners, anti-HTML. Well, he can be anti-anything he wants, fine. But it's not his personal responsibility to destroy user access for everyone else, to go from boycott to taking away the choices to be made from others.

I suggest that he be given a 30-day suspension from Wikipedia and have his "edit" privilege taken away, since he refuses to conform to the Wikipedia policy on the use of spaces, and insists that all articles on "supercentenarians" be his personal page, formatted only in his way. It takes quite some time to fix these tables, and as you can see it is once again broken (by Mr. Epstein). The claim that the table isn't needed:

(Rerverting because this article is better off without an extra table full of duplicate links and repeated information in an unexplained format.)

Is completely ridiculous. Mr. Epstein created his own version--thus the claim of "duplication," even though his version came later and was the real "duplication," and the fact that it did not duplicate everything contained in the first article. The comment about "unexplained format" also is a red herring. What he means is that he won't accept any format unless it meets his personal approval, regardless of Wikipedia policy.

Attempts at past mediation have failed to curb Mr. Epstein's intransigent stance and refusal to negotiate.

Please sign your edits. Also, this page is for protecting other articles, not for imposing bans or so. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ~~What you want is probably Wikipedia:Requests for comment, maybe Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and as a last resort Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.~~ Also, please note that you won't get much response if you don't have a login-- Chris 73 Talk 07:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

February 18, 2005

America's Army

User User:Ele9699 deletes everything, adds information he made up or which come from his mere point of view (he cannot add sources) and has made 38+ unnecessary edits in few hours today. He's also created two new pages whose relevance for wikipedia are next to nothing (Glitching and America's Army Controversy; glitching is totally made up and America's Army controversy is just what is on America's Army, or rather was because he deleted it from there unnecessarily. He needs to be stopped and forced to discuss changes or it can only end up in an edit war. He only made ONE comment on the talk page and then stopped replying.149.225.40.78 20:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 19, 2005

Creation biology

User:Joshuaschroeder requested protection 2 days ago on his preferred version, and subequently disappeared. he has yet to present any specific edits he would like to see on the page. The purpose of protection is to facilitate the resolution of edit disputes. the edit dispute is gone, because he disappeared as soon as he "got what he wanted." i request that the page be unprotected so that productive editing can continue. Ungtss 17:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Joshuaschroeder has now made some proposals and lets not forget that 2 days is not much. We do have lives outside wikipedia. As for the status of the dispute I think we are getting close to an agreement but it is not ripe yet. --LexCorp 05:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 20, 2005

List of countries that only border one other country

User:ExplorerCDT attempted to change the content of this article for that fact that some countries listed are not sovereign states. This list however, like many other lists of countries, include sovereign states, dependent territories and de facto independent unrecognised entities. The purpose of protection is to give a pause to a war of reversions, and to keep the present rule across many lists of countries. — Insta ntnood 20:38 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

The original version prior to the edits war is this version by Instantnood (me). (at 17:18, Feb 16 2005) — Insta ntnood 23:11 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

I put the {{protection}} tag on the page. Instantnood's reversions constitute the perpetuation of misleading and rampant inaccuracy, and I intend to hash this out in discussion. —ExplorerCDT 21:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT cited incorrect evidence to back his arguments. The article is now added the {{protected}} tag with the state prior to his modifications. — Instantnood 22:32 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
- Cite whatever evidence was incorrect. So far you have not. Stop the rhetoric. I added the tag before, you just continue to revert (which until some admin comes around and makes that protected tag work I will continue to restore to the version to which I added the protected tag). —ExplorerCDT 22:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quebec Sovereignty movement

Ongoing POV dispute initiated by JillandJack, whose own edits were more POV than the POV they were claiming to correct. User has since been banned as a reincarnation of the previously-banned Black Widow (a/k/a DW, Angelique, etc.) However, after the ban, yet another new username, Oirvine, edited the article to reinsert, absolutely verbatim, POV edits by JillandJack that had been removed by myself and Curps. I'm concerned that this user may have even more backup usernames on the system. Cannot protect personally due to involvement in the dispute. Bearcat 23:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think protection is needed in this case, not yet anyway, especially now that the party concerned has just recently been banned as a reincarnation of a previously banned user. Any future sockpuppets will reveal themselves by their behavior (editing style and hairtrigger personal attacks) and can be banned as reincarnations. At least two longtime earlier contributors (Mathieugp and Liberlogos) have expressed interest on working further on this article, which they largely withdrew from while JillandJack was active. Now that a few more people have an active interest in this article or have at least put it on their watchlists, the 3RR rule should be able to handle any further unilateralism by this user. -- Curps 02:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 21, 2005

Template:Creationism

I'm adding a legitimate sub-category to creationism Modern geocentrism that User:Ungtss refuses to accept. He claims that I am vandalizing the template. He also has willfully ignored the facts of the matter which are that Modern geocentrism is a form of creationism (explicitly, a form that believes that the Earth was created to be at the center of the universe). His accusations on Template talk:Creationism do nothing to address the fundamental points I made in defending the inclusion of modern geocentrism. Please help us avoid this edit war. 128.112.149.136 01:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the above was anonymously added by JoshuaSchroeder -- recent quick deletes will show that mr. schroeder created several pages entitled Ungtss vs. mainstream science in geology and others, acts of sheer vandalism in order to mock me. he currently has Creation geology up for VfD without any justification other than "some of the material is a repost from a deleted page," which is plainly untrue, as the entire structure of the article was changed. he recently used protection in order to keep "his version" of creation biology up, after which he made no substantive comment on the talkpage for 4 days, and is now proposing that we scrap the entire thing and start fresh. please, if you do protect the page, protect it on the version before schroeder forced his pov on it. the talkpage discussion will show clearly why it is inappropriate to have geocentrism on the creationist template. Ungtss 01:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the user, this page is not the place to resolve it. Requests for page protection is to be used as a measure to cool down edit wars on a single article, not over multiple ones. Please look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution first, before considering protection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks:). Ungtss 05:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 22, 2005

There were no requests for protection on February 22, 2005.

February 23, 2005

Cangjie

Request for unprotection:

For no explicable reason, the Cangjie article appears to be protected. I've been hoping to make some improvements upon it but haven't been able to do so. This page hasn't been touched since it was first created by Stevertigo back in December and isn't listed in the protected pages. The page really needs to be fixed up since it's mostly an incomprehensible machine translation. --Umofomia 01:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Governor General of Australia

A working relationship seems to have returned and most of the disputed points seem to be resolved. --Dlatimer 12:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

America's Army

A case of three editors who all want it their way with little room for flexibility. Protect until they cool down/forget about it. Kukuman 19:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 24, 2005

There were no requests for protection on February 24, 2005.

February 25, 2005

Chrono Crusade

This page is pending deletion for technical reasons following VfD. During the VfD discussion, putting a redirect to Chrno Crusade, which is also known by this title, or moving Chrno Crusade, was suggested. Neither of these are possible while the page is protected. Susvolans (pigs can fly) Did you know that there is a proposal to treat dissent from naming conventions as vandalism? 18:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation, as the article MUST be protected for administrative reasons, because it can not be deleted. I think the best way is to nominate it again for Votes for deletion, requesting that a redirect be made instead and explaining the situation with the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 19:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it still technically possible to move these articles (e.g. to Chrono Crusade/Deleted) ? If so, that would more closely emulate normal delete behavior, where the namespace would be freed up. --iMb~Mw 04:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. dbenbenn | talk 05:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gibbs

This seems to have been protected pending deletion after a VFD vote (it cannot be deleted due to compressed revisions). However, I note that it started off as a redirect to Gibbs, Missouri, something that seems not to have been noticed by the VFD participants. I suggest that it is unprotected and reverted to a redirect. sjorford →•← 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you should relist the article for VFD, like I suggested below. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gibbs is now a red link, just as if it had been deleted. Feel free to do whatever to it. dbenbenn | talk 05:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

February 26, 2005

Keith Wigdor

Tediously long running revert war between two parties over a very minor aspect over a remarkably minor article. Also listing under Request for Comments, and given the unlikelihood of a 'truce', am asking for page protection as recommended by the 'Discuss with third parties' policy. Alai 03:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Protected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect Wigdor article. Dispute resolved. User 24# and I agreed to final compromise discussed on talk page for that article. --Bleedy 18:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just told Bleedy that I am putting in my request for unprotection as well. Please unprotect the Wigdor article. Dispute is resolved. User Bleedy and I agreed to final compromise discussed on talk page for that article. Thank you for all your help.24.168.67.254 20:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected it. BrokenSegue 04:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Global warming

Protected by User:172 at the request of User:Stirling Newberry. Not listed on protected pages. SN turned up, made some huge disputed edits, then asked 172 to protect the page. Most contributors would prefer it unprotected. (William M. Connolley 21:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

William M. Connolley and Silverback seem to be spending more time agitating to get the page unprotected than trying to resolve the disptute. This is strong evidence that protection now is especially needed. The revert war will resume the minute the page is unprotected. There has to be more progress in attempting to resolve the dispute first. 172 00:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am unaware of any dispute, there was an attempt to put text duplicative of the greenhouse gas page and of questionable quality into an already overlong article, but that was being successfully resisted not just by WMC and myself, but by others. The strangely insistent minority evidently resorted to sock puppets and still did not succeed or even prevent progress on the page, and now are being rewarded with protection of a version that was reverted to by a user with 1 edit. --Silverback 13:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leave protected. 172 was very generous, as none of the users involved were blocked for violations of the three revert rule. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take it that you did not review the history.--Silverback 13:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed the history, not the log. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) So exactly who do you think merited a 3RR ban? Come on, out with it.

(William M. Connolley 16:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The only one who came close to being banned was Stirling Newberry. Note also the use of a sockpuppet (WikiWarming) to get it back into "Stirling Newberry"s version.

(William M. Connolley 16:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Question to 172: do you have any interests to declare, or do you assert that you are a disinterested?

Huh? Declare what? I'll unprotect it when there appears to be some progress in resolving the dispute. 172 20:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I'm asking you if you're disinterested on this, because you don't appear to be.

Disinterested in "this?" What's "this?" Unprotecting the page? No, not right now. You continue to spend more time agitating to unprotect the article so that you can get the "right version" up there. Do you mean am I interested in the article? Figure it out. I have never edited that particular article, nor any related article. I am not qualified to deal with the subject matter. 172 16:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I know you haven't edited the article. I'm asking if you are biased towards SN. Why did you protect the version produced by a sockpuppet?

Probably because, as an admin, he's supposed to protect on whatever the current version is. Snowspinner 20:49, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Even when that version is by a sockpuppet? That doesn't sound right. BTW, check the edit history timing [35]: 19:36: I revert; 20:31: probable sock WikiWarming reverts; 20:34 172 protects.

I'm going to unprotect the page, simply because Dr. C. has requested it. If an edit war ensues, I will ask warring parties to stop fighting! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks Ed. I'll be good I promise.

... Again. This page has just been protected by User:172:

Four minutes after a silent revert by User:Stirling Newberry;

With no request for page protection having been made -- or at least, not having been made here;

And without placing the page on the list of protected pages, or even a protection notice on the page in question.

What, to coin a phrase, gives? Alai 03:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

February 27, 2005

Sydney Hilton bombing

Edit war in progress. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parties have been blocked for 3RR violations (see WP:AN/3RR). I suggest waiting it out to see if they learn to cooperate. -- Netoholic @ 15:34, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

February 28, 2005

United Kingdom

Edit war with User:Heimdal. I am being mass reverted without explanation. I made my position clear on Talk:United Kingdom#Politics. He refuses to respond, calling my edits "vandalism" and posting in the edit summary, "Jiang, I think you just need to accept that it's not up to you to decide how an article should look like" --Ji ang 11:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

A low-level revert war between User:Rovoam and User:Tabib seems to be escalating today. With the exception of a bit of boilerplate about the dispute, there have been no edits except reverts since 24 February. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like User:Rovoam violated the 3RR. Listed him on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this may cool things down a bit. I suggest keeping an eye on this article however (also Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Caucasian Albania which are also being revert-warred by User:Tabib and User:Rovoam.) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems the blocked user is now using IP adresses to evade the block. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

March 1, 2005

Alberto Fujimori

This page is under a severe edit war, between myself and User:Viajero. The article was under the "Disputed Articles" and had the little tag of "Neutrality disputed". Somehow, somebody deleted the "neutrality disputed" and started to make clearly POV accusation in the page of the former president. I started to rewrite the article, putting the "Neutrality advice" once again, when suddenly Viajero started to revert almost all my changes. At the begining, he was not stating anything, just reverting them. With users HappyApple and AAAAA we manage to force him to explain his edits, but most of the time he is just reverting the page. Also, as a mayor concern for us, he is ussing higly controvertial and Biased webpages to support his statements, showing his lack of knownlegde about Peru and this politician. Also putting pictures that involve death and trying to appologise a peruvian terrorist organization. User:Jmabel at the begining seems to be tryed to clear the controvercy, but AAAAA show me that he was also involve on a Shinning path controversy with User:Viajero. I have try to reach compromise, but they keep accusing me of being irrelevant to the topic.

As a Peruvian, Labeling those Terrorist Groups (as defined also by the US, th UK and the EU) as merely rebels is simply annoying and offensive, and It seems that those persons will not stop until they get me out of the topic. Please, I request the article to be protected. The most NPOV article is this one. Messhermit 09:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Global warming a repeat request, please unprotect as per consensus expressed on talk page

We are running out of sysops, and need a new one since Uncle Ed has put

himself in purgatory and 172 has been desysoped.--Silverback 19:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL, no worries mate, I got an early out due to the sincerity of my penitence. (Thanks, Snowspinner!). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:20, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

March 2, 2005

There were no requests for protection on March 2, 2005.

March 3, 2005

United Kingdom

Edit war with User:Heimdal. I am being mass reverted without explanation. I made my position clear on Talk:United Kingdom#Politics. He refuses to respond, calling my edits "vandalism" and posting in the edit summary, "Jiang, I think you just need to accept that it's not up to you to decide how an article should look like" --Ji ang 02:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Side note: On a first glance, it looks like a 3RR of Heimdal on February 28 -- Chris 73 Talk 02:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal was blocked by you, but came back and continued to revert me. Despite encouragements from you he has continued refusing to discuss the matter and removed your comments and most of mine from his talk page. --Ji ang 02:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang should stop playing the innocent victim of "mass reverts" here. Because let's state this clearly: Jiang is quite swift at "mass reverting" others too. Jiang started reverting my edits when I first decided to pep up the Germany article - to make it more interesting to read, by adding images and subsections. That was obviously too much to bear for a vain person like Jiang, who, for whatever reason, seems to believe that he's in charge of deciding how long an article should be, how many words a section should have, how many subsections should be allowed, how large or small the images should be, and what not. Interestingly, so far Jiang has been the only person here who has continued to revert me - apart from bombarding my user talk page with his complaints, and with his silly threats of blocking articles, even of banning me from Wikipedia. Unlike Jiang, however, I've never asked for protection of my version: anyone can revert me and change my edits any time. I know that tolerance and vanity hardly match. But perhaps Jiang should go out of his way and accept that there are now two versions of the Germany page, and also of the UK article: his minimalistic version, and my pepped-up one. Jiang can continue to revert me as much as he wants, but time and again I shall restore my own version. If this is unacceptable for Jiang, I suggest that he should go on and protect the whole Wikipedia. Then its all his. -Heimdal 11:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to have an edit war, and in my opinion both of you are guilty of edit warring. The page was protected so you can discuss the issue on its talk page, maybe get some outside input, and (hopefully) find a compromise. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, if Jiang is as guilty as me of edit warring (of course he is), I wonder why it is that it's always his edits which get protection. Perhaps it should be time, for a change, for my edits to be protected from Jiang's continued reverts for some time. But I'm quite sure that even if I asked for it, I would never get any protection - because: (a) I'm still new here (people don't know me), and (b) I'm a foreigner (I'm German). The more I think about it, the more I believe that that's the real issue here.-Heimdal 12:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i just protected any version, not really caring which one. A protection also does not last forever, but is usually stopped after a week or two. You should find a compromise during that time. And about (b): Bevor du den Eindruck hast,dass die ganze Welt Deutsche wegen der Holocaustschuld verachtet: ich bin auch Deutscher, das macht hier überhaupt keinen Unterschied (Translation: bevore you think that the whole world spites you because of the holocaust and such: i am german too, makes no difference here) -- Chris 73 Talk 12:30, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, of course, you did care which version you wanted to protect, didn't you. Entschuldigung, wollen Sie mich für dumm verkaufen? (Translation: sorry, you can't fool me.) As regards the "compromise" that I'm supposed to achieve with Jiang. Jiang has been complaining here ad nauseam that I continued to "mass revert" him without explaining why. As a matter of fact, it's not me who needs to explain - it's him. I did not "mass revert" him, I only tried to protect my version from his own reverts. Jiang should first show me which Wikipedia rules state clearly how long an article must be; how many words a section must have; how many subsections are allowed; how large or small images must be, etc. As long as he doesn't deliver, I don't see any need to compromise. But I fear that those rules don't really exist, they are only part of Jiang's fantasy. Mfg, Heimdal 13:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version.

Also, protecting to "Jiang's version" is the most conservative move, as the changes you are attempting to make on the article are what he has been reverting it from; "his" version is the original.

James F. (talk) 13:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I just protected it. If you would ask me about the difference between your version and Jiangs version: I have no clue. I just saw a history of lots of reverts and a request for protection, and hence protected it. I have no preference of one version over the other, because I don't know the diffeence between one version to another. Honestly. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:47, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version - LOL :)))) -- Chris 73 Talk 13:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jdforrester - actually, I thought that anyone could edit on Wikipedia. And wasn't I recommended to be bold when editing? (Sorry for my naïvety - I'm German, you know.) But if I'm supposed to ask Jiang's permission first for every sentence that I post, and every image that I add, then maybe I should reconsider my decision to join Wikipedia. -Heimdal 14:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can edit - and so can anyone else. But if you edit in a provacative way, even if not deliberately, your edits are likely to go the way of all flesh. The moment that people started objecting to your edits, you should have entered into a dialog with them over the edits you wanted to make, including the reasons for doing so, on the talk page. And, similarly, so should have they. That's the way consensus works.

James F. (talk) 14:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jdforrester - the only person who kept reverting me was Jiang. The only person who kept objecting to my edits was Jiang. This was the case first on the Germany page, then on the United Kingdom. As I've said, unlike Jiang I've never asked for protection of my edits. Anyone could change and revert them any time. I just waited that someone else but Jiang would revert me - then I would have reconsidered. But it was always the same person, it was always Jiang. So that at one point, I just decided to ignore him - especially since he never made clear exactly against which Wikipedia guidelines I was running against. -Heimdal 15:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have explained at Talk:United_Kingdom#Politics. I've cited wikiproject countries and other guidelines. I have received absolutely no response. I have asked Heimdal multiple times [36], [37]. I am waiting for this user to discuss the issue. The burden is on him.--Ji ang 20:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I may stick my toe in the water(!)... I've not been involved in the edits under dispute, nor have I examined every edit, but in my opinion the currently pretected version looks better than some of the previous versions. It is shorter, with well proportioned images, and the military separate from the politics section. Further detail can be added to the specialist pages if necessary. However, I think the use of the subheads for The Monarchy and Parliament and Government (as of 20:49, 2 Mar 2005) would aid navigation even with shorter text, while on the other hand the emboldened "Government", "home rule" etc. sub-sub headings are unnecessary. 80.42.36.23

To whom it may concern: please unprotect the UK page, as for my part I've decided that I shall not edit there again. My edits were never meant to be "provocative". I found the article as dry as dust, and thought that the United Kingdom deserved better than that. But I'm not British, so it's not worth it to keep insisting. I'm fighting on the eastern front already, and I can't fight on the western front too. The Germany page is a different matter, because I really care about that article. Since I joined Wikipedia I've put a lot of time and effort into that article, and, sincerely, I'm quite proud of the result. I won't allow Jiang to undo all my work there too. -Heimdal 10:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize & Mesmerize

These are the name of the 2 new albums by System of a Down. They both need protection because some dates were wrong by MrHate by thinking Mesmerize is first and Hypnotize is last. There's meanings on his talk page. But, the webiste Pause & Play thinks Hypnotize is first and then Mesmerize. Right now, I have a better idea, just protect them both (Hypnotize and Mesmerize) until we find out what would happen next. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming I'm misunderstanding something. Are you asking for the articles to be protected until April? Snowspinner 02:51, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a silly reason to protect a page to me. Either find an authoritative source for the actual release dates and correct the pages accordingly, or else change the wording to something more "hedging" to acknowledge that it's uncertain when they'll be released, to be changed later when the albums finally come out. Or are the two sides so unreasonable they want to get into an edit war about it? Dtobias 20:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, Snowspinner I was not not asking for the articles to be protected until April. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what, exactly, are you asking for? Dtobias 20:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the vandalism to stop by restoring the wrong release dates. The right release dates are supposed to be April 26, 2005 for Hypnotize and September 27, 2005 for Mesmerize. That's all. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will protect the two pages until I can find more information. This will be on Saturday. Danny 02:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

~~Bad memory on my side, I guess. Page protected. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)~~

Unprotect Germany

The Germany page has been protected by Jiang for more than two weeks now. I think it's time to give others a chance to update the article, and to correct Jiang's most obvious edit mistakes - such as lumping the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire together, which is simply wrong from a historical point of view.

I ask Jiang to show me the Wikipedia guidelines which state clearly how long an article should be; how many words a section should have; how many subsections it should have; how many images the article should or should not have; how large or small the images should be, etc. Then I shall be ready to make the necessary changes to my version. But just to say, the article is "too long", "too many" images, "too many" subsections, size of images is "wrong", etc, won't be enough to persuade me. -Heimdal 17:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object. I have made my positions clear at Talk:Germany#Cleanup_-_shorten_this_article. I am still awaiting a response. As can be implied by the need to "correct Jiang's most obvious edit mistakes", Heimdal is just waiting to mass revert my edits as he has done at United Kingdom and when this article was accidentally unprotected, without attempt to explain what is exactly wrong with my edits. The consensus is to shorten the article, and other users and I have discussed ways to do it. Heimdail has ignored it. This article should stay protected as long as Heimdal refuses to discuss the issue or is banned. --Ji ang 19:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this ought to be unprotected unless someone sees a reason to be more touchy with Germany than Yasser Arafat. This isn't vandalism, and it's more than concievable that other users would find mistakes in such a high-profile article. This protection is harmful, and the incorrect approach to take with one alleged problem user. See RfC, RfAr, whatever. Cool Hand Luke 00:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting this article will result in another harmful edit war. Please encourage the uncooperative user to start discussing the issue. Protection is meant to spur debate. The prospect of unprotecting this article is just encouraging this user to stall and not discuss the issues, so he can "mass revert" me once this is unprotected. Heimdal posted on my talk page soon after this was protected and I asked him to discuss this, "Jiang, I prefer to wait until your protection request expires. That should be next Tuesday or Wednesday. First thing I'll do is to revert the mess you've made of the article and give the whole thing a shorter structure." Please dont encourage this behavior.

The best thing people interested in editing the article can do is to convince the user to start discussing. In that way we can resolve the issue and not have this end up into another edit war that would ultimately lead this article to be reprotected, with nothing much accomplished in the meantime. --Ji ang 01:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, please cite me here the wiki rules which state clearly how long an article should be, how many subsections and how many images should be allowed, and how large or small the images should be. Then I'll be ready to make the necessary changes to comply with the rules. -Heimdal 10:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. Here they are:

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Structure_of_the_article - "On the other hand, overuse of sub-headings should be avoided, as it can make the article look cluttered. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own sub-heading, and in these circumstances it may be preferable to use bullet points or bolded text instead."
- and Wikipedia:Use subheads sparingly
Wikipedia:Summary style - "As a rule, they do not trigger a page size warning (in rare cases this rule must be broken since the point is to limit readable text, not markup and sometimes markup may push a page above 30 KB)." "Articles longer than ~15 printed pages (more than 30KB of readable text) take a rather long time to read for what is supposed to be a general encyclopedia. When articles grow significantly past this amount of readable text, a plan to break-up the article to improve readability and ease of editing should be explored."
Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed_image_size - "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup", or approximately 200-250 pixels of width if you're doing it manually."
- to add: Wikipedia:Captions#Complete_sentences - "Ensure that your captions consist of complete sentences."

Of course, these are not the only issues under dispute. Much more (practically all my edits to the article) were reverted. Some of your reverts, such as the removal an interwiki tag, is probably due to sloppiness. However, there are other things I would like you to explain or clarify. I have made my position on these issues clear at Talk:Germany and have asked for your response there. (I even posed questions) If I have not been clear enough, then please let me know.--Ji ang 11:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, but these are very general guidelines, and I can't say as to how far these are rules that must be obeyed, or whether these are merely suggestions. On the other hand, I don't want to start another fight with you over what has to be changed and what not. Therefore, I've thought that maybe a 3rd party could look through the incriminated version, and then report here what needs to be changed and what has to go. Both me and Jiang would then stick to it. Chris 73, what about you? I know that you've been keeping an eye on the Germany page. I would be glad if you would do the job.

Jiang, your personal interpretation of the Wiki Guide is too strict. These are guidelines not rules! They are only of advisory nature. Please get out of your way to accept that the articles don't have to be all identical. Countries are different and it would be absurd to impose the same structure on all of them. -Heimdal 16:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as Jiang is unable to prove that the guidelines he cited above are mandatory, I ask that the Germany page be unprotected. It would be absurd to keep the article blocked indefinitely just because of one person's mistaken interpretation of the Wikipedia instructions. -Heimdal 16:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are "mandatory" if the community of Wikipedians say so.

It's your mission to convince us otherwise.

Please consider Wikipedia:Consensus.

So far, your success has been limited.

--Johan Magnus 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've posted before at Talk:Germany, rules are only to be broken if there is either 1) reason to do so and 2) consensus to do so. there is neither since the comments and rationales I requested never arrived and four other users have spoken out supporting limiting the content of the history section. your version is does not have community support so you are in no position to simply mass revert me citing the rules do not apply - in this case, they do.

I am, however, open to having a third party, such as Chris 73, settle this. --Ji ang 18:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, actually nobody was complaining until you stepped in, putting "cleanup" banners above the page and whipping things up on the discussion page. Nobody was reverting my version but you alone. As regards the consensus: only a very limited number of people takes part in the discussion on the Germany page - you and Gidonb being the most vociferous ones. But many other people who do use and read the article do not post on the discussion page. So the opinion expressed there appears to be distorted, and in no way does it reflect a consensus. -Heimdal 10:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the United Kindom page, I've asked Khendon to unprotect the article - which he/she did -, because I've decided to leave you the ground there. I can't fight on two fronts at the same time. The UK is all yours. You have already reduced the map of the British Empire to thumbnail size. Sincerely, it looks ridiculous now. It only proves how absurd an overzealous application of the Wikipedia guidelines can be. Now you can proceed with reducing all the remaining images to thumbnail size too.

The Germany page is a different matter though, because I've put a lot of effort in it and I won't give up so easily. On the other hand, unlike you I've never asked for protection of my edits - anyone could change and revert them any time. A solution would be for you to accept that there are now two versions of the Germany page - yours and mine. You can revert me whenever you want, just as I can revert you. I only ask you not to revert me immediately, but to let pass some time before you revert back - and I'll do the same. Time would tell which of the two versions would persevere. -Heimdal 12:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject." Just because people are silent doesn't mean they agree specifically with you. Instead, with the policies, conventions, and guidelines on my side, I can reasonably say the community is on "my" side. The rules and guidelines have been written up and discussed by countless editors and have existed for years. Either way, we can't say that what you want has consensus since if you want to flout the rules, then you need to provide a good reason. Actually, there were plenty of complaints about the article before I came. I was led there by a post at wikipedia:WikiProject Countries by Ruhrjung saying the history section was too long, had been shortened in the past, and kept getting longer. see also Talk:Germany/archive2#Shorter_history_section, Talk:Germany/archive1#Isn.27t_the_history_section_a_little_unbalanced.3F

Trying to induce a revert war to see who will prevail is not the way to go about solving this. Why not just discuss the specific disputes in content and formatting so why can arrive at a mutual solution? There's currently a discussion among some other contributors about information on the Holoucaust. If you want to make your views know, or want to persuade others, then the best way is to talk. No one wins in an edit way. It's just a waste of everyone's time to be reverting back and forth. There is no "giving up" here. If you're right, then you don't have to "give up." Just persudade us that you're right.

As you have been told before, protection is to get you to discuss the matter. It is not meant to preserve my edits. It's not about "two versions" and having to select one. The system is not binary like that. We should discuss the pros and cons of specific aspects of the different versions and retain those, not just choose one and discard the others. This can be solved by discussing, not revert warring. Please answer to specific points on the talk page. --Ji ang 01:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect Germany. I've started a new page on my own at Federal Republic of Germany. The title was still free. The links on Wikipedia can stay as they are - there is no need to redirect anything, because the Germany page will still remain the "official" article. The "FRG" will be the "unofficial" version and will be under my charge. Of course anyone can use and edit both versions. I for myself won't edit on the "Germany" page anymore. With time I hope that my version will be the more informative one, because I've lots of material in German to my disposition which I can translate into English. -Heimdal 10:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of this protection is so that we can have the parties resolve the issue through discussion on the talk page. You are free to start a different version at Talk:Germany/temp, but forking is not done in the main articlespace. I am still waiting for you to defend all your unexplained reverts of my edits. If you're right and I'm wrong somewhere, then I would like to be persudaded. wouldnt that make things a whole lot easier? --Ji ang 11:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly a reasonable solution. This is just begging to be listed as a duplicate article, or have a merge notice placed on it, or indeed just ve reverted to the redirect it was two days ago -- which is not strictly a 'free title' as I'd understand it. Furthermore, the idea of this article being "under your charge" is anti-wikian in the extreme. Why won't it immediately turn into the same dispute at Germany, that you don't wish to work to resolve? Alai 11:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it won't be necessary to start the same edit war about the format of the article on the FRG] again, because you are free to impose your rules on the Germany page. Apart from that, anyone can edit both versions, I don't want to be exclusive. -Heimdal 11:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My rules? There are no rules that apply to one version that don't apply equally to another. In particular, the requirement for consensus exists in both. (Assuming for the sakes of argument two versions were allowed to co-exist, which would be ludicrous.) Alai 11:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're forking the page because you won't work with other editors? Cool Hand Luke 12:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 4, 2005

Fenian

Target of vandalism, I've been reverting and am now vandal target. Can someone else protect? Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

March 5, 2005

Bangladesh

Article has been mass-edited (i.e. raped) twice over last few days. Mass information was deleted without any attempt to discuss. No summary of edits was provided either. The new information added conflict information present elsewhere in the article. New information had obvious bias against certain personalities involved in the article. Links were removed and various other wikiedit practices were violated. Kindly protect article for next 60 days. Edits were carried out by 172.136.66.109 (talk · contribs) and Toba1.-- Urnonav 05:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An urgent response needed. It has become an edit war and the intruder appears to be a vandal; s/he deleted the entire article and vanadalized another user's user page. Thanks. --Urnonav 04:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

protected--Ji ang 04:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I condider the protect doubtful. By the standards I'm used to at global warming this isn't much of a war.

We should wait till the vandal decides to discuss or 60 days whichever comes first. Not too many wikipedians work on this article now and at the rate at which he's coming back to delete the page, the page will disappear soon enough if it's not protected. I am willing to work on further removal of POV, if there are any, in the article, but at this stage let it cool down. -- Urnonav 11:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Well I have strong opinions on protects (I regard them as a blight) but few opinions on Bangladesh, so I will leave it to those who care about the article to sort out. I'll note, though, that its on my watchlist and I check it multiple times per day, so it should be safe enough. 172.136.66.109 appears to be a vandal rather than interested in discussion, and I would have though banning the IP would be better than protecting the page.

He's using dynamic IP :(! -- Urnonav

Revisionist Zionism

Edit warAndyL

protected--Ji ang 04:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please unlock the page. A poster with a political agenda has been inserting distorting information on this thread. It is crucial information that without context will result in defamation of groups. All I ask is that this information be removed until I substantiate a contextual basis for it by the end of the week, and if I dont, than it can be put back.

Thanks,

Guy Montag 23:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guy accuses me of having a "political agenda" yet his user page reads "I am primarily here to represent the nationalist right wing in Israel, and to make sure that Jewish national aspirations are not misrepresented in this fine online encyclopedia". Citations have been provided for the facts Guy disputes in the article. It's nonsensical for him to insist that factual information be removed until he can provide a "contextual basis" for it.AndyL 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect as per Talk:Revisionist Zionism AndyL 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

edit war over.

Guy Montag 16:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 6, 2005

Template:Sockpuppet

One user keeps removing a category line that a majority supported keeping on CfD. Multiple users have been reverting this user. Vacuum c 04:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the article to stop the revert war, please discuss on the template talk page to reach an agreement. Can anyone link the previous discussions on the matter to this talk as well? Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

March 7, 2005

David Duke

User:Mel Etitis solicited a group of editors:

14:10, 7 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ta bu shi da yu (David Duke) (top)
14:07, 7 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:AndyL (David Duke) (top)
14:06, 7 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Guy Montag (David Duke) (top)
14:04, 7 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:SlimVirgin (David Duke article) (top)

to help him revert, rather than using the talk page. One of many examples of POV majoritarianism trumping NPOV and factual accuracy here on the wiki. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very true. the page was being attacked by a new user, calling himself Adolf, clearly the same user as the earlier 'NSM 88' (who was banned for making threats, and for having a Nazi-related User name), and whose only other edit was to add to the Anne Franks page a link to a site questioning the genuineness of her diary. This person was reverting my changes wholesale, including a large number of house-keeping and spelling-corection edits. Sam Spade was, as usual when white supremacists are involved (though of course he has no sympathy with their views), defending him, and reverting the page to his version.

Experience with the person's earlier incarnation, as well as with his type, and the fact that he made no attempt to justify his edits on the Talk page, told me that there was little point trying to reason with him. Sam Spade's request here is mischievous at best; I'll leave it to the reader to decide what it is at worst. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your innuendo proves my point, that your goal is partisanship rather than dialogue, and your method is attempting to shift focus on to the individuals involved, rather than their arguments. NPOV and factual accuracy are the casualties of your consistently fallacious behaviours. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protected. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, it's a fruitless exercise to "dialogue" with self-proclaimed Nazis. AndyL 16:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take alot of thinking to assume they might be here based on Stormfront having advised them to do so. Outside of that, there are clearly enough people interested in david Duke for him to have gotten a few votes in Lousianna, and a great deal of national celebrity in the US. There was a poster of him holding a jewish girl in the air at a campaign rally hanging in my highschool office years back, for example. If there is any truth to your sockpuppet claims (which I doubt), handle them in the usual manner, this is certainly no special case. Why Nazi's would need to be handled differently than communists acting in an organized manner is beyond me, but we all have our bigotries I suppose. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that is true (I personally see such an absolute rejection of them as similar to their own rejection of "Jewish ideas", etc...) but assuming it is, one could at least dialogue with myself (as Mel Etitis didn't) in a logical manner, rather than resorting to ad hominems. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 8, 2005

User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC

Jguk and Maurreen are revert warring over whether that page should be kept or deleted. I can't say I was uninvolved either, but I have resolved to stop reverting. Thanks, Vacuum c 23:54, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

March 9, 2005

Government of Australia

Requesting unprotection. A number of editors are in agreement that we have a consensus on how to present the form of government. Unprotection is supported by at least five users on the current talk page, and several more people in the archives have indicated their support for the proposed form of the article.

One editor has been attempting to insert novel interpretations into the article in a manner that amounts to original research. The current consensus has incorporated multiple concessions to account for the point of view this user is trying to advance, but we refuse to allow this point of view to be presented as fact, which appears to be this user's objective. Accordingly, we have concluded that it would be better to have the article unprotected so work can proceed, and edits that lack consensus can be reverted if necessary. --Michael Snow 17:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khaleda Zia

Anon user at 69.139.10.217 is repeatedly vandalizing the page by inserting sexually expletive remarks, meaningless sentences etc. Please protect the page and possibly block the IP. --Ragib 23:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've put a warning on the IP's talk page. If it continues, the IP should simply be blocked. I don't think protection is necessary yet. --Michael Snow 00:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 10, 2005

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

Several users attempting to censor fair and unbiased extended article by leaving inaccurate comments for their edits, including one person attempting to confuse the issue by adopting a username *very* similar to mine. Request to have page locked and abusive user from 62.24.88.190 blocked.

--Chadbryant 20:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking into this. silsor 21:37, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

March 11, 2005

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

User:Dick Witham is instigating another edit war. May be same user that was editing the entry as User:ChadBryant before being banned. - Chadbryant 03:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second this request. It's like a kindergarten or usenet over there. silsor 22:29, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Lir

Invalid reason given for protection. There is no policy that you need the Arb Com's permission to edit a banned user's userpage, and this was protected on Bcorr's "preferred" version -- that is, the only content of the page being a notice that Lir has been banned. I request this be unprotected. User:Oven Fresh/sig 22:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to advertise a troll project on a banned user's userpage. Looking at the page history, your rationale is, quoted from an edit summary, "Lir is entitled to his own userpage, even when banned". As far as I can tell you made this up. silsor 22:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's their wishes to "advertise" the project on their userpage. I don't see the difference between Lir's userpage to anyone elses in what 'rights' it should have. Being banned doesn't (or shouldn't) take away userpage privelages -- I would like to have the notice of their banning at the top, and their former userpage at the bottom. This wasn't accepted, so I tried removing Lir's rant (most of his userpage), but that didn't work either, so I gave up for a while, until I saw jguk adding a link to Lirpedia. I certainly don't see what is wrong with this, at least (other than it not being Lir's original page so we don't know whether they want a page or not). :/ User:Oven Fresh/sig 22:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why on earth would a banned user be entitled to a userpage? If they edited it—even through a sockpuppet—it would be in defiance of arbcom. Cool Hand Luke 10:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lirpiedia violates the GFDL. It uses Wikipedia content under a different license and with no linkback to Wikipedia. It is inappropriate to link to in any context other than linking to it on Mirrors and Forks as a problem. Snowspinner 05:07, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

March 12, 2005

NAMBLA

A conflict has developed regarding the purpose of the organization. After a few rounds of edit/reversion, I placed comments on the talk page in order to resolve the dispute. Other participants, however, choose not to share their views on the talk page, insisting instead on engaging in a revert war.

The page has been set on protect before, focusing as it does on a highly controversial issue which draws a number of volatile visitors. Another period of protection seems to be approrpriate until other contributors are more inclined to express their viewpoints constructively before forcing them onto the article by brute force. Corax 01:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possibly the slowest edit war I have ever seen. Are you sure this needs protection? silsor 05:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the anon's edit and it's just ridiculously POV. This is almost to the point of vandalism. Left suggestion on their talk page that they read WP:NPOV. silsor 05:06, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:FarQPwnsJoo

Some people who don't like me keep vandalizing my user page. --FarQPwnsJoo 09:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is only one person and can be dealt with by blocking. If your page is protected, you won't be able to edit it anymore. silsor 05:03, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

March 13, 2005

Wikipedia:Recentchanges

I added back the interlanguage links before realizing the old version that I took that from had way more than I remembered so the current list (on my browser at least) is twice as long as the list of changes. Before I could fix this mistake, someone protected the page. Please unprotect or fix. Thanks, DJ Bobo 04:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex

Looks like a content war brewing over whether to remove a picture, keep it inline or link it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource author

Can't find anywhere that documents why this is protected, and the talk page is empty. -- Netoholic @ 17:03, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

It looks like you were in a semi-revert war. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been over a week since the troublesome editor has been here. Please unprotect so I can correct the template to be consistent with other Wikipedia:Sister projects templates. -- Netoholic @ 06:01, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

March 14, 2005

Melanie Phillips

An anonymous user has been consistently vandalising this page with POV nonsense and vandalism. Perhaps if the page were protected they would go away. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 17:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 15, 2005

Largest cities of the European Union by population

Again, I call you to take some action, user Hardouin yet another time reverted my edits and put the wrong info on this page. Please protect it and have it assesed by someone with a knowledge of demography. See also the discussion page for all arguments.

VicFromTheBlock 20:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This list has been tampered with by the user Hardouin on at least two occasions, That person, orginally from France, puts the metropolitan areas/urban areas onto the list even though the list deals exclusively with cities/towns. I did advise him that the reason why this list was created has to deal exclusively with cities/towns and not metropolitan and/or urban areas. In fact, that user had put the French metropolitan areas on that list the last time he changed it with no regards to the specific formal of the list, ironically he failed to explain why he did that. He also confused the U.K. metroplitan areas with the cities/or towns per se making the list a mixture of urban areas for France, metropolitan areas for the UK and cities/towns for the rest of the E.U. when at the same time he knew that list deals exclusively with towns or cities. Furthermore, the user User:195.252.84.162 has added unecessary and also imprecise information on the population of countries that are not set to be part of the European Union. This page should be temporarly protected because the data that it contains is accurate and precise and should be updated only if real estimates are published by any of the 25 statistical agencies in the E.U. Most users that "update" it fail to understand its concept and the criteria under which it should be updated. The only link that Hardouin provided us with regards to the cities/towns population in France is the following one [[38]] and in fact it gives us imprecise information based only on the 8% of the city/town population and claims that 0.5 % and/or 500 inhabitants may or may not be counted. Take a look at the history [[39]] of the page and help me have it protected. Thank you and I'll appreciate any proactive solution. VicFromTheBlock 9:02, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFC silsor 02:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

Please protect until an issue regarding deletion of a redundant and factually fallacious paragraph is resolved. Watchers and Editors of the atheism article tend to ignore discussion and attempts at resolution, and cause edit wars. This issue should be resolved shortly. Thank you. Adraeus 07:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one who's engaging in multiple reverts over there, IMO it seems somehow inappropriate for you to be requesting page protection. Why not just stop reverting while the discussion goes on? Bryan 08:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted twice, each time requesting editors to discuss first before making changes. Editors are apparently ignoring those requests. As such, it is my duty in good faith to request page protection while we resolve this issue. The reason why we discuss changes first on Wikipedia, Bryan, is because publishing a page means displaying a document to thousands, if not hundred-thousands or millions, of readers. Constant addition and removal of an entire paragraph will most likely demonstrate editorial incompetence on our collective part, and without discussion, the only remedy is for a contributive user to leave Wikipedia — a voluntary action that you cannot coerce me to take... no matter how hard you try, Bryan. Adraeus 09:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not in any way attempted to coerce you to leave Wikipedia. I haven't even participated in the reverting, and I was the first to try answering your call for discussion on talk:. Please don't inflame the situation by assuming attacks where there aren't any intended. Bryan 00:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The edit war is now flourishing. Please protect the page. Adraeus 20:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I saw no edit war ([40]). I did see a number of users trying to come to a resolution of a dispute, while Adraeus kept changing the article to suit his view of the matter. It started with his removal of the word 'amongst' on the grounds that it was 'obsolete'(!), and rapidly escalated to the removal of a whole paragraph. Four users made single edits to the disputed material, each time followed by Adraeus trying to return his PoV. In all, eleven edits had been made in total over the two days between Adraeus' first edit and the time he made his desperate plea for page protection; four of them were his, no other user had made more than two edits. No-one had touched the page for nearly eight hours when he made the plea; his edit was the first, and the page was protected twenty minutes later, freezing his disputed edits in place. Could the page be unprotected, as there was no good reason for the protection in the first place, and the result has been the freezing in place of a version against which there's considerable consensus. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 17, 2005

Paul Wolfowitz

Either remove him from the main page or protect this page, this is ridiculous. In the past minute I've reverted the page multiple times, only to find that its almost impossible to find a version that's not vandalized at all. The history shows about half of the edits to be either vandalism or "rv vandalism" edit summury: aka "Add more vandalism and use a clever summary to trick people".→mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 19:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected for the time being. – Clockwork Soul 04:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 18, 2005

Government of Australia

Please protect, revert war between Adam Carr and Skyring. I would protect myself, but I've been involved in editing the article. --Michael Snow 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Duke

This is a request for unprotection. The dispute seems to have died down; the editor who was reverting has not recently added to Talk:David Duke; and two other editors have agreed a compromise text which, it is hoped, will keep everyone happy. SlimVirgin 02:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Roberto D'Aubuisson

Sesel is on auto-revert war mode. J. Parker Stone 02:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protected, please try to come to an agreement with this user. Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

March 19, 2005

Fidel Castro

Castroite spin-doctor WebLuis at work. J. Parker Stone 04:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 20, 2005

Paul Wolfowitz

Unprotect? The link has been removed from the main page now, so hopefully the page won't be vandalized any more. There were 15-20 vandalism/anti-vandalism posts, but it's hopefully blown over? --jacobolus (t) 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Scott Gall/Call for Excommunication of Fred Bauder/Vote on Excommunication

I am closing the vote to non-sysops in 24 hours time. I need a protection to enforce this. Scott Gall 05:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No you don't. Use your watchlist. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 06:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Let me note that pages that are on the front page because they are in the news are the worst possible pages to protect, as they're likely to need updating. The point of the ITN box is to show how fast we respond to changes. Protecting pages that are in the news defeats the purpose of that. Snowspinner 05:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Smith (TV personality)

User:Boothy443 is instigating an edit war. He has added derogatory and unsubstatiated material on the grounds that "the accusations were made and therefore are factual." Moreover in doing so he has used weasel terms such as "it is alleged" and "it is believed." He made original reverts without even bothering to contribute to discussion and only did so when faced with a revision battle. Moreover his ultimate responses to discussion page did not justify inclusion of material nor use of weasel terms. Moreover my most recent edit added a reference to the alleged scandal in an external link and that should satisfy any need for reference to it. Please freeze article in status of 08:02, 20 Mar 2005 or block Boothy443 from edits to this article.

First it was me instigating an edit war and now it's Boothy. The user who didn't sign his/her name is User:Narcissus14. I have no problem with blocking the page, since this user has engaged in multiple reversions of the page in order to whitewash Mr. Smith's history. Discussion of the sex scandal is certainly appropriate, since it had a strong effect on his career. Rick K 08:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a detailed reply on the talk - here I'd like to address the manner in which RickK blocked me - accusing me of "vandalism" and being "unwilling to compromise". I challenged him on this accusation but he never replied. RickK knows that I'm a new user but denigrates me for trying to follow the rules (see Jeff Smith talk for an example of his sarcasm and above use of pejorative "whitewash"). "Vandalism" is defined as editing or reverting "in bad faith" - where did I show bad faith? I've been trying to engage RickK in a meaningful dialog but until I persisted in reverting he wasn't interested in dialogue and even then resorted to ad hominem retorts rather than supporting his position. Second, between us I am the only party who attempted compromise so how is that I am "unwilling to compromise?" What compromise did RickK ever propose? Moreover the text I was trying to remove contains "no-no" terms like "it is alleged" and "it is believed" without any evidence. RickK seems more interested in accuracy of who edited what first (see his comment above) than the accuracy of the Wikipedia article! What I'm concerned about here is what feels to me like an abuse of the power to block a user - and you well know that when a user is blocked he cannot even respond to a discussion forum. Makes one feel like one is being shouted down - not very civil method of discourse! Is there any recourse? User:Narcissus14

Henry Kissinger

WebLuis & co. will not stop reverting back to unnecessary and loaded "war crimes" charge. Delita Hyral 10:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delta Hyral is a sockpuppet of banned user Trey StoneAndyL 14:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And you're a clone of 172, WebLuis, Ruy Lopez and the rest. J. Parker Stone 20:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 21, 2005

RNA world hypothesis

Protected a month ago and discussion has stopped. Gazpacho 07:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected Broken Segue 14:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates

Itai and Netoholic are warring over the folowing templates: Template:Wikiquotepar Template:Wikibookspar Template:Wikibooks Template:Wikisourcecat Template:Wikisource Template:Wikisourcepar Template:Wikinews Template:Commonscat and Template:Wikispecies. There is a dispute over whether meta-templates should be used or not. Vacuum c 19:40, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Itai has made no subtantive edits in weeks. He reappears only to revert these templates ad nauseum. He's also been blocked twice regarding them. So long as he doesn't persist, there is no reason these can't remain editable. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

But doesn't the fact that someone broke the 3RR on a page make it more worthy of protection, not less? Vacuum c 20:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

It means that I am in the precarious situation of not being able to have anyone that can co-sign an RFC against User:Itai. These templates work and are stable, but he does nothing but revert without discussion. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Without discussion... Say what you will about Netoholic, he's got a sense of humor. — Itai (f&t) 21:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from the header section: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies." A) RFC has nothing to do with page protection. B) This silly edit war is causing the very perfomance problems that Netoholic is worried about. Vacuum c 22:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have a well-documented page (Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful), developed with User:Jamesday (main database guy for Wikimedia). It outlines that meta-templates are a server hit all by themselves. If these must be protected, do not do so on the version which is by itself going to cause this on-going performance hit. -- Netoholic @ 23:02, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

The edit war is continuing. I am asking admins to please block one or both of Itai and Netoholic under the disruption provision of the blocking policy. Vacuum c 17:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The templates have been protected outside this process. Vacuum c 14:42, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Protected by whom, and why? (That Netoholic has an I-don't-like-this Wikipedia: page is fine, and I might just create a Wikipedia:The Sisterproject template should be used page, but that doesn't change the fact that surveys - two on WP:TFD and one on Template talk:Sisterproject - have shown there to be a majority for using Template:Sisterproject.) — Itai (f&t) 16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio.jpg

In the past two days, this has been blanked eight times, marked {{delete}} twice, and given a redundant {{vfd}} despite already being listed on WP:PUI. While perfectly understandable, given the loathesome vandal who's been double-redirecting random user's pages here, it should be vprotected until this sick individual gets tired. (Or is shot. I'd prefer the latter.) —Korath (Talk) 22:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

March 22, 2005

There were no requests for protection on March 22, 2005.

March 23, 2005

American Chess Association

Requesting page protection for article on American Chess Association.

It appears that supporters of competitor US Chess Federation are editing and blanking out article, then redirecting to their own article on US Chess Federation, the competing organization in order to promote that organization in violation of Wikipedia policy

Would appreciate page protection

That seems to have happened only once so far, according to the history, so it hardly seems like an ongoing, repeated thing that requires protection. -- Dan -- 11:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pornography in Japan

Request for article protection from persistent vandalism whereby tons of porn links get added. Ethereal 05:31, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's just a once-a-day jobby, regular as clockwork. I've put it on my watchlist and I'll rollback any that aren't caught by other editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The vandal escalated to twice a day so now I have protected it. Listed on WP:PP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Netherlands

Move war occuring between Netherlands and The Netherlands. I am involved in this, so I feel I should not do page protection myself. It should be protected on the original ___location (which was Netherlands) of the article until the title of the article is settled on the Talk page. —Lowellian (talk) 10:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. See WP:RFC, see the talk page. Lowellian disagrees with the previous move to The Netherlands (which went through WP:RM) and wants to unilaterally place the article back at Netherlands. He has thus far refused ~~discussion and has not placed~~following procedure to place it back on WP:RM. If it is protected, it should be left at the current ___location, The Netherlands, at least until the RFC has concluded. User:Anárion/sig 10:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My comments on Talk:Netherlands show that I have not "refused discussion." When the page was moved from Netherlands to The Netherlands, it never properly went through WP:RM, the move being made and the request being removed within a mere 22 minutes, allowing no time for discussion (see [41]). —Lowellian (talk) 11:27, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've gone for the WP:RM process again and nobody seems to be in a hurry to move the article. No need to protect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. No need to protect. —Lowellian (talk) 12:57, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

March 24, 2005

Mari Holden

Persistent, malicious vandalism. Page should be restored to the edit whereby the photo was initially added. The malicious editing (from IP 69.142.39.5 (and later, other IP addresses) began shortly after that. The IP address was placed on a vandalism report list, but then they switched to other addresses and continued the vandalism.

March 25, 2005

Fidel Castro

WebLuis continues to revert without any basis for his watered-down version. J. Parker Stone 04:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republic of China / Taiwan

Recently the edit wars on several topics about Republic of China or Taiwan have intensified, possibly due to the release of Anti-secession law. With a large [demonstration] to be held in Taiwan this Saturday, it is feared that the ongoing edit wars at these topics will also reach a new height inevitably; therefore I propose a cooldown period be applied for the main battlefield of the war, the above two pages, to avoid the unnecessity from happening and to restore the contributors to their own reasoning.--G.S.K.Lee 12:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 26, 2005

George W. Bush

This page is being vandalised on a daily basis. Sometimes the vandalism includes overt death threats and bad language; this HAS to stop. But, before it is frozen it must be made into a completely neutral article, quite the challenge.--Mb1000 00:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've worked on that article. It is normal for it to be vandalized several times a day, but there are many editors so the vandalism is reverted very quickly. Protecting that article would be counter-productive. If we had a magic wand that we could wave to make an article "completely neutral" and at the same time informative, we wouldn't need editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

(direct link)

Opponents of this proposal have, rather than follow standard procedure by marking the page clearly as a failed proposal, elected to tag-team redirect it and then protect the page. Whether you like or dislike the proposal, this tactic is deplorable. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Bull. The page had been a redirect for months before you decided that the previous consensus and decision wasn't good enough and that you would recreate the page. When over 2/3 of the people in a straw poll told you not to, you persisted in keeping your new page instead of the redirect that had consensus. Snowspinner 05:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

(Cross-posted) Why then are there plently of policies which are clearly marked "failed" or "not accepted" (Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy, Category:Wikipedia rejected policies)? -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Do I smell the nasty reek of back-channel IRC discussions? No matter. I moved the failed policy to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal, as has been done in other cases, and restored the redirect to RfC. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 05:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find Mirv's solution of moving it to a different page that could be archived like that fine. Snowspinner 05:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Fidel Castro

Leaving this page protected gives no incentive to User:Trey Stone to stop edit warring and pay attention to the talk pages. WebLuis 07:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please stop. J. Parker Stone 17:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I protected this page last night following a request here, and I'd like to leave it protected for a couple of days until disputes are worked out on the talk page; otherwise one or more of you is in danger of violating 3RR. SlimVirgin 17:08, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to this page being protected. It is monitored, and if either Trey or WebLuis go over 3RR they can be blocked. Why should everyone suffers over a dispute concerning 2 people? You might as well protect Henry Kissinger as well. People who break the rules should be sanctioned. What happened to Trey's supposed 14 day ban? If he is edit warriong straight after early coming off a ban, I suggest he should be rebanned and Fidel Castro unprotected. Whatever, sanction the wrong doers, don't just punish the rest of us who now cannot try and make a better article that may be less subject to dispute. --SqueakBox 17:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated the 3RR. There are no grounds for re-banning. J. Parker Stone 17:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I saw mention of an arbcom case involving Trey Stone, so give me some time to look at the details. In the meantime, I note on the talk page that there was talk of a poll being held. Is that going to be done? I would personally rather see the page protected for a couple of days than see people blocked, but I agree that it shouldn't be protected for long. SlimVirgin 17:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting now because it was only ever meant to be to give people a chance to get a breather. The edit warriors are well known and can be dealt with by ways other than continuing to stop anyone else editing this significant article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protect Thomas Spriggs Wootton High School

Ever since this article was created (23:20, Mar 13, 2004), numerous people have vandalized this page. These people include:

Special:contributions/69.140.51.224 15:40, Mar 14, 2004
Special:contributions/170.140.91.218 17:24, Mar 6, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 22:35, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/138.88.250.148 22:38, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 22:43, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 22:47, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.193.201 22:52, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.53.169 22:53, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 22:54, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.193.201 22:54, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/141.156.43.76 22:54, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.53.169 22:55, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 22:59, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.53.169 23:00, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.140.193.201 23:01, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/138.88.250.148 23:01, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/69.138.208.56 23:05, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/68.239.95.152 23:07, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/68.239.95.152 23:10, Mar 23, 2005
Special:contributions/68.55.23.85 22:44, Mar 24, 2005
Special:contributions/68.55.53.251 17:43, Mar 25, 2005
Special:contributions/138.88.209.195 22:43, Mar 25, 2005
Special:contributions/128.138.174.206 18:03, Mar 29, 2005

To stop this vandalism, we should {{vprotect}} this article. — mathwiz2020\^talk 19:24, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

March 27, 2005

SPK

An anon user keeps dumping large chunks of unformatted material copy/pasetd from other websites on this article; I have left messages on numerous talk pages (text is added from various different IPs that all belong to a German dial-up ISP) that have all been ignored. A message on Talk:SPK has also been ignored, the same textdump has been added to the talk page so I guess the message has been read but the anon chose to ignore it. This has been going on for days; I'd protect the page for a couple of days, but since I'm technically involved in a content dispute, I think it is better to ask here for someone elese to protect the article. -- Ferkelparade π 13:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. The letter they keep spamming is on the talk page and that should be enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah Öcalan

Revert war between Coolcat and Stereotek and handful of others.The war spilled into Kurdistan Workers Party and likely other Turkish-Kurds-Armenians-etc articles. Pavel Vozenilek 18:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have cooled down. Broken Segue 05:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 28, 2005

Taiwan

Anon users attempting to remove references to the Republic of China from the Taiwan article. Slac speak up! 06:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 29, 2005

Liancourt Rocks

This is an article on a territory whose attribution is being disputed by Korea and Japan today. The current version [42] has been developed by many from as neutral a viewpoint as possible. However, posters such as Jongbhak (talk · contributions) and 143.248.31.61 (talk · contributions) have replaced it entirely several times with one that is blatantly slanted to the Korean side [43]. For example, the name of the rocks and time periods are all changed to those of Korean history (Liancourt rocks -> Dokdo; 1618-1900 -> Josun Dynasty of Korea) and Japanese references are deleted. This is against NPOV since the Liancourt rocks are as much a part of Japanese history as of Korean history albeit the dispute over the current attribution. They leave no explanation for their massive rewrite in summary. Nor do they come to discussion to make a consensus with other posters before rewriting entirely despite being advised so. (Examples of the said rewrite by Jongbhak: diff 143.248.31.61: diff) Thus hereby request for page protection. Hermeneus 05:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protection is not a tool of the dispute resolution process, so no admin will give you a protection on the premise that one version of this article is better than another. silsor 05:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article is being re-written again and again entirely in the last days. Hermeneus 05:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Would you say that the article is being re-written, or that it is being swapped back and forth between two versions? The first is relatively healthy. silsor 06:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's successive reverts to a particular past edition as shown by the two linked diffs above, sometimes partially, sometimes entirely. Hermeneus 06:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have put a temporary protection on the page on the basis that it is being edit warred over. silsor 05:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

March 30, 2005

Bahá'u'lláh

There have been maybe twenty reverts in the last week or so, its getting out of hand and so we need a cooling-off period where the dispute can be properly discussed. Users are disputing whether a sensitive image should be placed at the top of the article (following normal wikipedia procedure), or at the bottom of the article (to avoid offending the Bahá'í Faith). However, many proponents of the former position seem unwilling to intelligently discuss, instead filling the history and talk pages with abuse. A cooling-off period is needed to promote the discussion and resolution of this dispute from both sides. --Brendanfox 03:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentchanges

This page seems to be under protection every time I look at it, while the talk page is largely ignored. If the intent is to keep it protected, I suggest removing the edit link and adding it to Wikipedia:Protected page#List of protected pages as a (semi-)permanently protected page. If not, I suggest a bit more active attention at when this page should and shouldn't be protected. Of course, I can also just ignore the thing... JRM 18:47, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

Silsor was kind enough to clarify the status of the page. Given that, I'm guessing editing it should be left to admins for now. JRM 00:41, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

I'm not making a statement one way or another by listing it. silsor 00:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

March 31, 2005

David Yost

This page keeps getting hit by a pair of vandals:

Special:contributions/24.141.241.66

Special:contributions/Captain Planet

I'm really getting tired of reverting this. I ask that either the page be protected or the vandals blocked. Tbjablin 00:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Not vandalism, but certainly a content dispute between you and some rather extreme fans. Protected. Hopefully they'll find somewhere else to play. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism

We have tried Wikipedia:two versions in order to try to resolve a dispute resolution. An annonymous user continues to place edits, however, so we need a more binding solution. Joshuaschroeder 17:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April 1, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 1, 2005.

April 2, 2005

Bleed Like Me

Some users need to be blocked for vandalizing the page, please see: [44] and [45]. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a straightforward content dispute. Please do not refer to relevant content you do not agree with as vandalism. You've both been very naughty. I've protected the page and I'll be watching the talk. Please discuss civilly and arrive at a consensus on content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This looks like one of the sillier edit wars I've seen around here, and definitely not a case of vandalism. *Dan* 11:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Please protect Pope John Paul II as it is being subject to updates to the effect that "I'm not dead" and "Yes you are". Janbrogger

I oppose this. It is an ongoing event and the article will need changing now he has dies, and we need to let people do that editing. The article needs watching carefully; it is now on my watchlist, and hopefully this will encourage others to do the same, --SqueakBox 20:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this will need regular updating. I'll keep it on my watchlist as well, at least for a while. Everyking 20:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO. We CANNOT protect articles that are in the "In the News" section. One of the things we point to when we say that we're better than other encyclopedias is that we respond immediately to current events. When we protect our current events, we destroy that advantage. Revert the vandalism, block the vandals. Same as anything else. Snowspinner 20:44, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Since 2100 GMT there have been about 2 edits a minute, none of them vandalism, --SqueakBox 21:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page appears to be protected, stopping legit editing by Adam Bishop. Can someone please unblock it, --SqueakBox 22:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

We NEED to- =protect it now that he sadly passed away. Ive found messages like "John Paul the II died because Neus killed him" and "He enjoyed killing Jews". An emergency protection is needed, I hope that all of you read this qucik and vote on it so the vandals can be stopped. "Antonio Youre my Meal Martin"

Unprotected. /scowl. Snowspinner 22:22, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I was about to do the same. Broken Segue 22:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a need to provide information on him and his death as quickly as possible. On the other hand, a reader's chance of getting a vandalized version is exceptionally high right now, and furthermore that vandalism is rather likely to be highly offensive to Catholics. So I'm unsure what the stronger argument is here. Everyking 22:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think protection ought to be done very commonly, or in response to a normal level of vandalism; people here are very good at reverting vandalism when it happens. The Pope's article has had an enormous number of edits today, and very few have been vandalism. Protecting it would stop useful changes as well as bad ones. If you protected every page that was the target of frequent vandalism, many other pages would be protected too; Hilary Duff gets vandalized often, but isn't protected. Protection should be reserved for pages that are the subject of current edit wars that haven't been able to be stopped by other means, and only for a temporary period to let the warring parties cool off. *Dan* 22:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hilary's article gets vandalized every few days or so, but here we're talking about minutes, I think. And I think there's an extra dimension when we consider the possibility of offending religious feelings. I noticed his name was replaced by "Hitler" through several edits before it was fixed. I do think a reasonable argument could be made in favor of protecting this for at least a few hours or so, while attention is highest. Readers are, after all, more important than editors. Everyking 22:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And readers should get the most up to date information there is. That's one of our advantages over other sources. Snowspinner 22:37, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Interregnum, Pope, Papal election, 2005 etc --SqueakBox 22:40, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

April 3, 2005

Special Air Service

Revert war between several users in last few days. No sign of progress in solving differences - just complete reverts. Few days lock may help here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Revert war with a user who refuses to conduct a discussion regarding his disagreements on the talk page. This may need arbitration. Corax 08:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-globalization

Revert war of attrition, needs protection. 11:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object to Sam Spade's request. There is no ongoing vandalism and no violations so far of the 3RR on this page that I can see. I provided a detailed explanation on the Talk page as to why a certain section of the article (Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism, nearly 6KB of a 44KB article) should be removed - its extreme length gave it undue prominence, more space than all other criticisms of globalization combined. This violates NPOV because it grossly distorts the actual nature of the arguments for and against the anti-globalization movement. (Most such arguments center on economic theory.) What exists here is a small number of individuals, who Sam has recently joined, who want this section included, when the consensus on the Talk page seems to be that it should be condensed into a single paragraph and included with the other criticisms. Firebug 11:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1 person is signifigant, a small number of people is ALOT, on the wiki. Anyhow, I may have solved the problem, see see Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I object to this request too. —Christiaan 12:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

atheism

Unqualified, undiscussed, and non-consensus-based reverts by one anonymous user, User:24.15.73.202 and User:Mel Etitis who also reverts any edit by User:Adraeus using ad hominem comments as reasons for his behavior. Protection requested again for 03:27, 3 Apr 2005 Adraeus 11:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the "ad hominem" ist this, referring to this. not an actual edit-war at this point. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have been two edits by the anon (who seems to have disappeared), one reverted by me, the second changed to a compromise. Adraeus reverted that version with an edit sumary in block caps, insisting on "no compromise". I reverted to the compromise, at which point Adraeus made this request. It's premature to say the least. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concur with Mel. Adraeus would appear to be "out of reverts", unlike anyone else involved in editting this article, which makes one question his motivation for requesting a "revert and protect". Alai 16:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alai, from the top of this page: This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

Mel Etitis' recent ad hominem comment was within the "reason for editing" value. He describe my revert as "hysteria", which is abusive. Adraeus 22:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm discussing it in the context of why page protection is entirely inappropriate (i.e., you'd reverted three times, and were asking someone to a) do another revert for you, and b) protect that version). You're the one broadening the scope of matters discussed here to user behaviour more generally. Alai 22:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you're suggesting that my intent was something other than in good faith (i.e., you're discussing a user). That is a violation of the rules for RfP. Adraeus 22:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless Mel Etitis reverts my edits again, the situation appears to be working itself out. Adraeus 22:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That speaks for itself, I think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, I was wrong. The situation is getting worse. The anonymous user and User:SlimVirgin (who is acting in good faith) are revert warring. The anonymous user has decided not to discuss the issue any further, and seems to have only desired to instigate an edit war on an already fragile ground. Adraeus 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The revert war has only run two reverts each so far and only involves a couple of words in the lead sentence, I don't think things look bad enough to call for protection just yet. I'll warn the anon to take his case to talk:, if he doesn't then perhaps the 3RR will kick in. Bryan 00:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The requester has now removed his request. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whirlpool (web site)

Repeat vandalism. Silenceisfoo 11:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have subsided. Silenceisfoo 12:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strike that, they're getting crafty. Silenceisfoo 13:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm warning the vandals. If they continue, you can ask for them to be blocked on WP:VIP or directly on my talk page. Let's keep it unprotected for now. Mgm|^(talk) 14:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, moved to Whirlpool (website). Silenceisfoo 14:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 4, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 4, 2005.

April 5, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 5, 2005.

April 6, 2005

The Matrix, New religious movement

Unqualified, undiscussed, and non-consensus-based reverts by one anonymous user, 66.x.x.x/69.x.x.x (he changes IP's to hide his trail). Probable self-promotion. Adds references to "Matrixism" (references were already present, but edited for fact and POV reasons in The Matrix, but s/he reverts back to unreverted state) Philwelch 06:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: Philwelch is also breaking the three-revert rule in this "edit war" by restoring his own version of the page, discussed but non-consensus-based, as he insists that his POV is correct and will not accept alternatives to his own edits. MFNickster 14:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a damn lie and you're a mighty coward for saying that behind the shield of an anonymous nickname. I considered the anonymous reversions to be vandalism (and my reversions thereof to be under the "simple vandalism" exception to 3RR), although if others have a different interpretation of the policy I can accept that. The position I took in the editing dispute was a COMPROMISE between deleting the reference entirely and letting it stay unedited. Instead, I edited it to fit factual and NPOV standards. It looks like the consensus now is to delete that reference when the page is finally unprotected (and since List of religions has been both unprotected and unvandalized for quite the while, it appears our vandal has given up). Philwelch 00:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

S/he doesn't change IPs to hide the trail, s/he changes IPs because of dialup. Both you and the anonymous editor are currently blocked for 24 hours by WP:3RR, so there's no need for protection at present. silsor 15:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and s/he disconnected and dialed up to get a new IP every 10-30 minutes whenever s/he went on another linkspamming spree. I call that "using a dynamic IP to hide your trail". Philwelch 00:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mara Salvatrucha

User LibraryLion requests this page be temporarily be protected from further editing to resolve an editing conflict between myself and Squeakbox. A good portion of factual and specific information I've added, cited from a world respected magazine, is being deleted without justification. The only reason it seems be being deleted is because it "offends" someone. I have restored other information from others, but I do not know of its validity. In not one statement I wrote is an opinion. There seems to be no common ground here, so arbitration may be needed. Philwelch 06:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to protect the page; ~~LibraryLion just wants to protect his version.~~

I reverted his material. There has been no edit war. He then reverted my edits 4 days later. i reverted again and he immediately came here shouting about page protection and arbitration. An OTT reaction or what? Or perhasps an attempt to intimidate me into not engaging with this article.

This article has an NPOV sticker on it because someoneelse considered the edits of LibraryLion and friends to be very POV (violence obsessed). A lot of the removed info is anecdotes, some is incorrect. Silsor has also been editing. RickK previously mentioned the POV. This article is problematic, and still with it's POV notice, but there are no grounds on which to protect this article. He is under the impression that because something appeared in Newsweek it gives an automatic right for this material to appear in here as well. Why LibraryLion mentions arbitration is beyond me. I find it bizarre, ~~but typical of the attacking nature of this character~~.

Arbitration for merciless editing. I don't think so, --SqueakBox 14:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving it on my watchlist for now. Please tone down your attacks on LibraryLion. If things get bad I may intervene, but clearly the article is being reasonably heavily edited so I don't want to heed LibraryLion's request.

Do you think he could be persuaded to use "~~~~" ? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LibraryLion started attacking me first at Talk:Mara Salvatrucha#Edit conflict, --SqueakBox 14:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Special Contributions/ LibraryLion dumped this on my User page today re Mara Salvatrucha, --SqueakBox 23:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

User:Guy Montag is removing a letter by Jewish luminaries denouncing Revisionist Zionism for unencyclopedic reasons. AndyL 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 7, 2005

Aesthetic Realism

The believers of this philosophy keep removing any reference to criticism about it. In particular they remove the link to Aesthetic Realism is a Cult and that their founder, Eli Siegel, killed himself. 23:30, 6 Apr 2005 (CST)

Are you sure you've got the right link? The history of that page shows only four revisions in total, three from early 2005 and only one from today. Bryan 04:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see a more extensive history at Aesthetic realism - looks like an anon cut-and-pasted the article back to Aesthetic Realism after a move was done. But still, all of the edits over there are from January and February, and I see little evidence of an ongoing conflict. Bryan 04:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is currently under attantion of people who put the "cult" text on the page. They have no other edit history. Pavel Vozenilek 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first writer (the one who requested page protection) is Michael Bluejay, webmaster of michaelbluejay.com. I believe I am the "anon" Bryan Derksen refers to because I moved the entry back to the correct designation, Aesthetic Realism, with both words capitalized properly (as needed for a proper noun). I have just registered in Wikipedia formally. Arnold Perey 17:06, 13 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to comment on the statement "The believers of this philosophy keep removing any reference to criticism about it..." etc. The writer, Michael Bluejay, is not interested in being a real critic (as Matthew Arnold was) but in putting forth unjust pejorative statements, mostly anonymous, which do not deserve the dignity of being called "criticism." A real critic is someone who is truthful and has a constructive purpose.

A major point: In his web pages Mr. Bluejay writes, "We move to the front page of Google for a search on 'aesthetic realism'....Our goal is to be #1 by late April." This is why he is showing interest in Wikipedia and putting on the pressure to get links.

I do not wish at this time to quote his emailed personal threat to become Number 1. --Arnold Perey 18:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia

Please protect - User:Levzur has returned and is once again deleting content for POV reasons. -- ChrisO 12:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletions are not explained by editor. I've protected. Mgm|^(talk) 20:09, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Suez Crisis and Ma'alot massacre

An anonymous (presumably dialup) IP user has been deleting the same material from both of these articles for days, and hurling various bigoted insults (e.g. "Jewboy"). Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 8, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 8, 2005.

April 9, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 9, 2005.

April 10, 2005

IGN

Some kids filling the page with nonsense in realtime. CCa 20 edits in last 10 seconds. Pavel Vozenilek

Protected. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Newgrounds

This page is beeing vandalised by several different useres, which have been listed in VIP but yet to have been blocked, the vandalism is mainly to promote their groupe on the site was well as general vandalism. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

North American Man Boy Love Association

The edit war shows no sign of abating. If editors would only concentrate on one issue at a time and refrain from personal attacks some progress might be made.Hjs 06:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This comment seems to have travelled forward in time from several days ago. The article does not need to be protected. silsor 09:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sidewalk

Candidate to The Most Silly Revert War Ever. 6 reverts in 6 seconds. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks duly stupid (BTW, it was 6 minutes, not seconds) but seems completely outouced in the 9+ hours since then, so presumably they are done fighting. And either version is perfectly OK. I am not protecting, but someone else would be welcome to. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pashtun

Jmabel requested this in his edit summary, as several people have been reverting an IP that keeps adding unverified, first-person claims to the article (also using a new account of User:Haider). I support the request for protection as well, but since I reverted once I can't do it myself. --Michael Snow 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, please would someone attend to this? There are now at least four of us who have reverted edits by User:Haider, who sometimes edits anonymously. We need someone to come in and protect this page, since this person keeps insisting on restoring his utterly non-encyclopedic content into the page and removing appropriate material. None of us can do it, because we've made edits, by reversing him. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

April 11, 2005

User:Tabib

I request unprotecting my userpage. As one person, whom I respect very much, used to say, vandal seems to have gone off for a nice cup of tea. ;-)--Tabib 11:10, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fatah

I request protecting the Fatah page, as an edit war seems to be going on between many people seeking to stress their own POV. 192.154.65.1 20:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 12, 2005

Nepali Wikipedia Logo

Someone is trying to use non-Nepali script on the logo.

User:Indiver 02:30, Apr 12, 2005 (NST)

Derek Jeter

Anonymous 66.254.235.147 is persisiting in attempts to remove relevant info from this article. I don't want to keep reverting and I fear the article will become unbalanced.No Guru 19:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Air China destinations and China Southern Airlines destinations

The policy dispute, partly over the usage of "mainland China" as according to naming conventions, is currently nominated for arbitration. And these two lists are not the only lists of destinations grouping domestic and international destinations in different sections. Huaiwei is in attempt to conform these two lists to the same format of the other lists he created or edited. — Insta ntnood 21:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a policy dispute, since the term "Mainland China" dosent appear. The only other list classifying them by domestic and international is the Varig page, and not the Lufthansa one he pointed out. So "some" actually refers to one, or at most two, out of all other lists. Instantnood, when moving the destination lists out of the two airliness pages, also changes their presentation to the "domestic/international" format without notice. Finally, I was not the one singularly dictating the format of these pages. They were actually based on existing formats across multiple pages which had more or less kept to similar formats until now.--Huaiwei 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 13, 2005

John Kerry

This page was reverted by an admin to remove a direct quote with a summary and then protected - this seems unreasonable to me. Can someone unprotect the page. Symes

Context: An anonymous user reverted the article to his preferred version 13 times, against the vocal opposition of several other users, and declared an intent to dodge 3RR blocks. I, previously uninvolved, exercised my option to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the 3RR, as allowed by the protection policy. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I to understand that a group of people can force a specific POV just because the organize and obey a rule? We should look at the edit - a full quote from someone versus a summary of it - both of similar length (paragraph changes from 2 to 3 lines on my screen with the full quote) - it seem so self evident that the facts are more clearly presented in a direct quote than a summary. How does this system work for disputations like this?? Symes 04:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is obviously a dispute here. You can help resolve this by spending the time talking to other people on the talk page. If there are 11 reverts in short order then it seems clear that there is some sort of dispute that should be resolved. Broken Segue 22:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Symes (talk · contribs) is clearly the anon user who made the repeated edits in multiple 3RR violations. He is, frankly, not being honest about the nature of his edits, which ncluded as an introduction to the text: "Kerry admitted to having committed war crimes by saying:" Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're insistence that I am the anon user at John Kerry is False and demeaning - I have asked User:Jamesday to verify this to you - I've been told that he can somehow - However, I respectfully request that you retract and apologize this accusation.

Granted I have been coached through IM by someone whom more experienced on wikipedia than I am for some of my problems last night - but I can not believe how quickly I was attacked. Is this what wikipedia does to someone who is fairly new - just attack when the point of view is different - I spent hours reading about all your "high ideals" which I now see are just wasted because there has been no wikilove. (cc'ed to your user page) Symes 02:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seemed clear (and I'll wait to see some evidence to the contrary before I retract that) that you were the anon. He made a string of edits to an article from which this account has been absent; as soon as the page is protected, you appeared on the protection page to defend him. There's the evidence; what is the counter-evidence?

You forfeited any assumption of good faith when you misdescribed what had been going on (another indication that you are the anon, incidentally). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still can't believe that you have yet again accused me of being the anon - PROVE IT - I am editing from a static IP through Brighthouse. In the mean time I am going to take Hawstom's advice -Symes 01:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is totally unreasonable - what misdescription? - an admin reverted the change and the protected the page. Symes 10:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 14, 2005

Teach the Controversy

There has been something of a revert war here. I've asked the editors involved to hold off until the issues have been resolved on the Talk page, but one of them has no patience, and Sam Spade (talk · contribs) has just started editing too, without discussion at Talk. I've probably become a bit too involved to protect it myself, so could someone else do it, until calm can be restored? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 15, 2005

Ward Churchill & Ward LeRoy Churchill

Both pages are under various attacks from various sockpuppetts, recomond that a ban of several hours if not days be implemented untill sockpuppetry is down and a dialog can be furthred between responcible editors in resolving the POV dispute. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taipei_American_School

This page is being continuously reverted, changed and otherwise abused by 3 (and perhaps now 4) IP addresses. There have been 3 non-anonymous users (including myself) that have tried to revert, discuss and explain what is required. We have POV'd the article, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. Details in the discussion page and on the Vandalism in Progress page. Wikibofh 21:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 16, 2005

Image:Edit-this-page-large.png

This page is a common target of vandalism (2 reverts needed already today) and I cannot see the advantage to keeping it unprotected. It would make life far easier if it were protected, and would not make things miserable for anyone (the page shouldn't be modified anyway). Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marked with Vprotected. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reform Party of Minnesota

This was a name of what is now the Independence Party of Minnesota, but also of a splinter group that formed when the 2000 election was happening. It deserves its own article. User:Smith03 continually reverts edits to merge the pages, even after i requested he stop. PLEASE PROTECT EdwinHJ | Talk 20:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 17, 2005

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

We've got an endless revert war going on surrounding Camilla Parker-Bowles and whether she is "the Princess Charles." It's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, it's added, it's removed, and the nimrods over there even removed my attempt as a third-party at mediating a hold. I'm going to try to mediate the hold again, but am not optimistic. I think that the page needs at least temporary protection to encourage the disputing parties to come to a resolution. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 16:00, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Um, so where do we find out if the request will be granted, and how quickly is it acted upon? — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 22:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm protecting the page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 12:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

April 18, 2005

Old polls in Wikipedia namespace

Okay, I have a rather strange request... many pages in the Wikipedia namespace are obsolete, outdated or simply a straw poll that has closed a long time ago. It happens somewhat frequently that (particularly new) users see such a page, assume it's currently relevant, and for instance add their comments or votes - under the false understanding that they're making a useful contribution that will be noticed.

So would it be a suggestion to protect these pages? Any Wikipedia namespace page that is inactive and kept for reference or historical reasons (e.g. those tagged with Template:Historical) should arguably remain in its present state, and re-opening the discussion (if needed) should be done on a new page. Just like most bulletin boards have policies against 'thread necromancy' or 'bumping' a year-old thread to the forum top by responding to it.

R adiant _* 11:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

In a similar vein, what about articles that are entirely complete in themselves? I recommend locking We Didn't Start the Fire because the only edits it is getting right now are vandalism. If someone wants to tweak paragraphs or add comments, it is easier to lock the page from vandals and update the article based on talk page discussion, then to leave the article unlocked and open to some proper edits but mainly vandal edits. What we should have is a locking policy and template that describes the article as entirely complete and further edits should not be necessary, but discussed on the talk page first.--Will2k 14:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do none of these pages have edit histories? Do timestamps in signatures not work? Just note the date that the poll or discussion closed and move everything said after that date to a more relevant place. I've seen requests like this before, and I still don't understand the desire to have certain pages remain just the way they are, now and forever. Obviously that's necessary for pages which, if changed, could have serious legal consequences—things like Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and the various disclaimer pages. Why is it necessary for old polls and discussions? This isn't a bulletin board, it's a wiki. Pages aren't supposed to be locked without some pressing need.

Yes, I do understand that, but the point is that users (in particular new ones) regularly add their votes and opinions to polls that have been clearly marked as 'closed'. The Wikipedia namespace is a very confusing page. It would be easier to protect a page than to have them all watched just in case someone new decides to make changes to an often-referred-to but seldom-read page. R adiant _* 07:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To Will2k: I suggest reading some of the articles listed in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music before declaring that article "complete". —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, but that particular song and article has a special nature to it that makes it a target of vandalism.--Will2k 18:33, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas

This page is suffering from a daily edit war between a registered and anonymous user that has taken place over many weeks. Encouraging editors of this article to use the talk page to sort out this dispute may be helpful. No Guru 18:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's now protected. -- Curps 00:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 19, 2005

Narendra Modi

This page is repeatedly getting hit with reversions to a very biased version of the article. The reverts are always done by anonymous user(s). There seems to be no way to talk to this person(s) in the discussion page. --Rroser167 17:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Has been locked without reference to this site, probably for the same reasons people temporarily locked John Paul II. This page needs to be kept open to keep up to date (our reputation is built on that), and to utiklise the energy out there that wants to edit. --SqueakBox 22:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

In my request to my talk page request it is now unlocked. But there were admins locking the page to users while editing themselves in clear violation of Wikipedia policy on page protection. Some admin might care to take a look, --SqueakBox 22:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Unlocking. Snowspinner 23:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is a notice on the Talk page of Benedict the XVI asking for the page to be locked again. I ask this due to this article being on the Main Page. With many items that will be displayed on the Main Page, they are locked for editing (e.g. the Putin and Yeltsin photo). And with the persistant vandalism being reported on this page to various places (e.g. Talk page, W:VIP). Based on this logic, I humblely ask you to lock this page. Zscout370 13:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to always lock pages that are in the news... isn't that letting the vandals win? How are any updates supposed to be made to hot topics? *Dan* 14:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to never lock pages dominating the news. This was tried at John Paul II, and because it was unlocked again the article was transformed because of the then interest in him. The same is the case for Benedict II, and would be so for anyone in the news in a major way. vandalism can be watched. the reality is there were editors who locked locked it and then comntinued to work on it themselves. if they lock it again I will investigate and bring to the appropriate authorities this flagrant abuse of admin power, --SqueakBox 16:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page shouldn't be locked. Since the page is a current event item, it needs constant updates to be kept current. If it's locked and new events unfold, admins will be tempted to edit it while locked in order to keep it current, and that goes against Wikipedia policy and spirit. This is from the Wikipedia:Protection_policy page: "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it's linked off the main page, or because it's recently receieved a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." Granted, the high visibility of this page has attracted lots of vandals, but it's also attracted lots of Wikipedians who have taken up the call to defend its integrity. -Eisnel 16:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I've protected User:Pope Benedict XVI which redirects to the article after the "user" was perma-banned. It should probably stay that way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page has again been locked without reference to here. please unlock, --SqueakBox 20:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page doesn't need to be referenced when protecting or unprotecting pages. silsor 20:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Unlocked after my protest, again! I missed that it had been locked. may need keeping a close eye on this page. I think people are letting there religious sentiments get the better of them, --SqueakBox 20:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

April 20, 2005

Pope Pius XII

Request for page protection on this page following repeated POV anon vandalism. reverted currently, I flagged a dispute (within article), put dispute into the discussion , locked the page incorrectly myself and now seek protection . I refer you to the linked page for the Centre Party Germany which deals with the substance and references to the same issue .Flamekeeper 07:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No sign of any major disputes in the past week. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a technical removal of papal approval of christian dictatorship which was an abbreviation of Part 3 of Dilectissima Nobis , released (following the Spanish Republican Government 's separation of church and state) by Pope Pius XI on 3 June 1933 . viz 'she(the church) does not find any difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions , be they monarchic or republican , aristocratic or democratic ' . This was shortly after promoting Hitler's accession to full dictatorship via the mar 23 Enabling Act . I ask you to keep this page under scrutiny for its explosive character . I find a tendency to strip-down history in all articles touching close to this 30's history , which does no benefit to either history or ourselves .For instance see Heinrich Bruning and compare it to the efforts on the Centre Party Germany page . I am deeply suspicious as it is near impossible for the un-initiated to distinguish between subtle revisionism and the natural desire of all to avoid unpleasant history .Remember that Cardinal Ratzinger accused voters for the 'candidate' Kerry of culpable association with the devil last year -IE this is a live issue .Flamekeeper 22:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More removal akin to dilution .The centre of the argument resides also on Theology of Pope Benedict XVI discussion page . Unless the apologists stop , the page will become usual stripped-out-history again . Flamekeeper 22:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 21, 2005

Unprotect Metro

Cecropia protected this, while himself involved in an edit war over it. I believe this is against policy. Thus it should be unprotected. --SPUI (talk) 20:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Streetcar too. --SPUI (talk) 21:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And subway and tram. --SPUI (talk) 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about freeway and BART for good measure? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Have those been improperly protected? Or are you just trolling and failing miserably? --SPUI (talk) 21:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The latter. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --SPUI (talk) 21:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dante, you are wrong on this. Did you bother to observe what is happening on the questioned articles? I am not in an edit war. I have not edited any of the questioned articles in awhile. I restored articles that SPUI improperly and without discussion, decided to make into redirects. He has made this articles redirects AGAIN even as the discussion on redirection and merge is going on on the talk pages. I ask you to look at the actual articles and talk. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to discuss it, and waited a few days; no one responded. So I was bold and merged. I then redirected, as that is the last step of a merge. --SPUI (talk) 22:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Dreier

User is removing an entire, multi-paragraph section of the article: Campaign 2004. I've listed the page on Requests for Comment and I'd like the page to be protected in order to avoid the edit war that's occurring. Moncrief 23:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't been edited since 27 April. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 22, 2005

Pablo Neruda

Long term dispute that needs to be put on ice of a while. Continual RV wars between multiple editors. TDC 02:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Augusto Pinochet

Constant reverts over "gross" human rights violations and (oddly) the capitalization of political philosophies. Maybe protection will force dialogue. –Hajor 02:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh someone has been trying to remove the reference to Pinochet's human rights abuses on and off for months. It doesn't seem to be hampering editing at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Oppenheimer

This page is currently featured on the front page and is the victim of constant vandalism. Gblaz 14:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We don't like to ~~edit~~ protect stuff that's linked from the front page--that would defeat the whole point of having a Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we don't protect front page articles. I'll just add it to my watchlist. Broken Segue 13:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 23, 2005

Rape

Due to an anon who refused talk page discussion, this page was protected -- on the anon's version. The protecting admin now refuses to tell us what needs to be "resolved" in order for those editors who aren't refusing talk page discussion to get to edit again.

Unprotected. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 24, 2005

There were no requests for protection on April 24, 2005.

April 25, 2005

Theistic realism

There are currently two versions of this page that pass back and forth in the editting. Despite using the twoversions tag, the editors cannot seem to agree on which version should appear up front and which should appear in the tag version.

April 26, 2005

Yale University

Anon User:4.22x.x.x keeps deleting entire miscellaneous section, no discussion on talk page, only rationale given being edit summary saying "rm miscellany. for reasoning, read here." which links to MIT talk page saying "It appears that the section was added due to a misunderstanding by User:4.228.102.139 of the NPOV policy (he/she saw some irrelevant deaths added to the Yale University article and started adding deaths at other universities to their respective articles in order to be "fair")." Then to firther show his/her "reasonableness", he/she keeps calling me a vandal in the edit summary, for restoring it. Gzuckier 03:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't been edited at all since 29 April. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Central College

Several anonymous users (probably the same person) is using wikipedia as a news source and blatantly plagarizing Central College's letter about the discrimination happening there (so I guess). The recent edit was a direct copy/paste from [46]. 65.125.130.70 obviously knows nothing of wikipedia policies and (consequently?) ignores the talk page. I think this page needs protection and/or 65.125.130.70 needs to be banned. Cburnett 21:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

April 27, 2005

Penis

Several anonymous users (probably the same person) have been removing the pictures in the article and used edit comments like "Revert vandalism (deleted porn picture)" and "Revert Vandalism Remember that children can see these picture!". This vandalism has happened over 6 times in the last few days. There has been lengthy discussions in the talk page about each of the images (in the past) and the majority feel they should be there. --Clawed 20:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. I can't anticipate it lasting long though. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 28, 2005

Brummagem

User:Nick Boulevard persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the the word "Brummagem". The material he is removing is consistent with the definition found in most dictionaries.--Andrew Norman 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on! He's done two edits since the end of January, both of them more than two weeks apart, and already you want the page protected? This is a straightforward content dispute and Nick is discussing his changes on the talk page and clearly not interested in edit warring at this stage. Sort it out amongst yourselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brummie

User:Nick Boulevard persists in reverting the article to remove anything he feels is "negative" about the accent and dialect used by people from Birmimgham. Others feel the material he is removing is factual, NPOV, and simply reports on the widespread negative perception of the accent. Nick's method is to simply revert the article to his last edit, regardless of any material which might have been added since, rather than editing to remove contentious material and justifying his actions.--Andrew Norman 08:44, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

A little more active than on Brummagem, but still no banana. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 29, 2005

Theistic realism

User:Ungtss and User:Joshuaschroeder for the last few weeks have been engaged in an edit war with little progress made in the talkpage in part because there doesn't seem to be any consensus on content, style, or even what the topic itself is about. If this page isn't protected, as can be seen in page history, it is likely that the edit war will never end since it seems to me like Ungtss is continually imposing his version and he seems to believe the same about me. Joshuaschroeder 15:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Power violence

User: 141.154.228.160 as well as other anons (probably all the same person) have repeatedly reverted this article back to a version that is clearly POV. Despite discussion on talk page they are determined to revert back to their version. Wikibofh 16:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a big deal. It was only recently unprotected and it'd be a shame to protect again so soon. Just tell them to stop behaving like big jessies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

April 30, 2005

U.S. Iraq War formerly 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Request movability unprotection - Stevertigo has unilaterally moved the page, without consensus (and from what i can tell _against_ consensus), and the page cannot be moved, apparently by protection. apparently steve is an admin. I consider the move an abuse of priveleges. In any case, i request the movability of the page be unprotected, so that the wikipedia community can determine the proper title for the page. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:46, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

~~I was about to do it when I found that Silsor had done it allready. Broken Segue 03:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)~~

Unprotected Broken Segue 04:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guru - needs protection

The article on Gurus is in the middle of an unproductive edit war. A request for mediation has been made, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#User:Zappaz and User:Goethean vs. User:Andries re: Guru but in the meantime it would be helpful if the page were protected, at least temporarily, in order to give the editors a break. I have not been a significant editor of the article but I've been seeing it going by on my watchlist, with frequent reverts by different editors. I suggested protection on the talk page and nobody has objected. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:56, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN/I Broken Segue 23:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. -SV|t 23:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May 1, 2005

Abortion

User:SqueakBox persists in reverting a link on the abortion entry. It's a pro-life link to Bible verses on abortion in the external links section. He has broken the 3 revert rule. 12:14am, PST, May 1.

How could he be breaking the 3RR? He has only made four reverts in the past four days, though admittedly the last three were in the space of less than one hour (which is permitted, though I think it's a bit OTT). Well I had a look and it seems that you are having a bit of a ding-dong there, but it's probably better if you just have a bit of a chat instead of reverting one another. I don't think it's at a stage that requires protection yet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big hurt (talk · contribs) only reverted abortion 5 times, but as a result of his persistence his spam is remains in abortion. Who said breaking the rules does not help. I have reported him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Big Hurt but nothing has been done and he acts with complete impunity, reverting 5 times and attacking me anbd making faklse accusations into the bargain. Why do I bother? Why do Big Hurt's baseless and untrue allegations get investigated and my Revert proofs ignored? Why is he allowed 5RR and then to keep his spam? as the Bible has nothing to say on abortion, --SqueakBox 15:46, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

See response on WP:AN/3RR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect The Matrix

We may have a resolution to the Marxism/Matrix dispute. AndyL 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Broken Segue 16:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect The Matrix again - we have a continuing revert war, which I've already added to Vandalism in Progress.

--MFNickster 01:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Earth

There's no protection template, and no mention on talk of why it was protected. --SPUI (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 2, 2005

Template:deletedpage

~~Since it's supposed to be added to protected pages (to protect against article recreation), it should also be protected.~~ --cesarb 00:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. Template:Protected is supposed to be added to protected pages but it isn't protected. Do you think people will recreate the article on the template? Broken Segue 00:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --cesarb 00:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course, if even Template:protected does not need protection, this one might not need it. Forget about this request. --cesarb 01:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

May 3, 2005

Kosovo

Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs) wants the Kosovo article to focus on UNMIK and characterize Kosovo as a UN protectorate, while Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs), Pokrajac (talk · contribs) and Ninam (talk · contribs) want to characterize it as a province of Serbia currently under the administration of the UN. They have two threads going and revert back and forth. Third party edits — mine — are getting lost in the reverts; I've had to apply the same edits (table formatting not related to the disputant's POVs) to both versions. User:Hipi Zhdripi has created a POV-Fork from a redirect for the other view — Kosovo i Metohija — which the others are not buying. Parties need to talk and the fork redirected again. — Davenbelle 00:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Another POV-Fork: Republic of Kosovo. — Davenbelle 17:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I protected them all. This is pathetic- also aren't the forks in violation of GFDL? Broken Segue 17:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kosovo i Metohija && Republic of Kosovo should probably be redirects to Kosovo. I'm not sure about your license question, but the forks are obviously a bad idea. — Davenbelle 17:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson has been protected for 3 weeks now by User:Viajero over a sourcing issued. The issue has been settled and needs to be unprotected. TDC 01:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh

A user who was banned for 48 hours for excessive violations of 3RR rule, impersonating an admin and then getting around his block by returning on a new IP address is now back to reverting Timothy McVeigh to a version that he is the only supporter of after it has been made clear that 15 or more different editors disagree with it. DreamGuy 11:25, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy was also blocked for violation of the 3RR. The original edit that DreamGuy did not agree with was the removeal of the term ¨terrorist¨ in a wholesale manner. It now says that he was convincted of terrorist acts by the US, which is more correct. Terrorist is a word to avoid as seen in Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid. I have tried discussing issues with DreamGuy, but he simply removes my comments on his talk page wholesale, just like he reverts my articles wholesale. I have asked him on several times to discuss the issue both on the discussion page or his talk page, but he refuses to. 66.194.152.87 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user was actually asked by multiple editors to discuss the issue on the talk page long back but only just now decided to in order to make this claim here. Numerous editors reverted his statements and told him on his talk page and in edit comments to knock it off or discuss it on the talk page. You can see on my talk page where he first threatened to ban me and then falsely claimed I was blocked, leading to him being banned for impersonating an admin. His recent edits have been more of the same threats of blocking and claims that I was violating policy when it was in fact himself who is repeatedly breaking rules. DreamGuy 11:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I did not threaten you with a ban. I warned you that your actions may get blocked and, true to my prediction, you were blocked. Furthermore, I was never blocked for pretending to be an admin since I never claimed to be an admin. 66.194.152.87 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said straight out that I was now blocked and was not allowed to edit, when in fact I had not been and you were just lying to try to scam me into not reverting your POV change. You were in the process of being blocked for that but got blocked for excessive 3rr rules before that happened. DreamGuy 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's protected now, but could we PLEASE have the page protected as it was in the consensus version and not the version as being pushed by the anon user (who has previously made edits to pages calling terrorist "martyrs")? It's bad enough that he's impersonated an admin, made false claims, and got around a block termporarily by switching to a different IP address, but if it stays protected in his version he will have won another victory against the editors who play by the rules and follow consensus. DreamGuy 12:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I feel the major reason why DreamGuy refuses to negotiate is simply because he does want his block for his 3RR violation to be for nothing. I think any fair person reading both the current version and the version previous will agree that my version is more NPOV.66.194.152.87 12:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the people that reverted your edits last time around would strongly disagree, but there's no need to argue it here as that's what the talk page is for. DreamGuy 12:14, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

see m:The Wrong Version Broken Segue 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah... And the fact that only an anon user who just got back from an extended block for multiple severe policy violations is the only one who has supported the current version in its history means that you can crack a joke comparing the situation to all the false claims you get. Right. Oh well, whatever, this guy has played the admins before, and he just won yet again. Heck if I'm going to waste my time worrying about the integrity of the content if the people who are supposed to look after that end of things can't be bothered to take it seriously. DreamGuy 01:46, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that you, DreamGuy, were also blocked for wikipedia violations and can not accept responsibility for it. After being blocked you put on your userpage an ¨update¨ telling everyone that your punishment to wikipedia for bein g blocked was that you removed hundreds of articles from your watch list. DreamGuy, you can not hold the admins here to ransom. Rules are rules, regardless of who you are or what your supposed intentions are. You knew the rules, you broke it and you were BLOCKED because of it. Accept it and move on and stop your crying.

Also, I am not the only one to feel that McVeigh should not be called a terrorist without qualifications. They have discussed the exact same thing in bin Laden´s article, so I do not see why McVeigh should be any different. 66.194.152.87 13:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was blocked because of a rather unorthodox interpretation of the 3RR rules that you complained about, and they wanted to bend over backwards to not be able to be criticized, whether the complaints were valid or not. All you've done here is lie and harass people, and the fact that they feel the need to be deferential to your opinions when you obviously have no intention of following the rules yourself is rather disturbing. DreamGuy 14:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Republic of Kosovo

Please, uprotect this article and make redirect to Kosovo, or just delete this page, because there is no Republic of Kosovo. :) --M. Pokrajac 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 4, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 4, 2005.

May 5, 2005

Clay Aiken

Anon users have repeatedly deleted the last sentence in the article despite current consensus on the talk page to keep it. Article was listed on RfC; that has solved nothing. Original user was blocked and now two other anon IP addresses have done the same thing. The last sentence—There is a vocal segment of fans who speculate that Clay is gay, but he has said he is not.—needs to be added back in, then, I guess, the page needs to be temporarily protected. Five editors have repeatedly reinstated the sentence, to no effect. Hermione1980 00:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Pius XII

User Str1977 is removing wholesale from the discussion page . Protect us who ask inconvenient questions ,from censorship.

No need to protect because of me.

For the record: I did not censor discussion on Benedict, I only tried to simplify the talk page by moving Flamekeeper's post, that was off-topic on this page, had been archived before and hadn't been touched for some time, into the archive. Unfortunately Flamekeeper thinks it appropriate to copy and paste one single post into the talk pages of entries that have nothing to do with his post, so I removed it from these other pages. I did nothing of that sort on the Pius XII page, where the post has at least some relevance, and in fact I will reply to Flamekeeper's post in time.

Talk pages, I think, were meant to discuss editing questions and the like - this rule should be applied lenient, of course, but his post definitely was beyond the pale. It is legitimate if Flamekeeper wants to discuss this topic (it appearently is very important to him), but that should be done on the proper page and also only on one page, e.g. the Pius XII page. There's no way a real discussion can evolve if it is spread on many different pages.

Str1977 12:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I include the topic in the article you remove it - this is a serious topic reported worldwide , it also relates across wide spheres from theology to Adolf Hitler by way of George Bush and abortion , whaddya expect me to do -leave the wikipedia ? Go on youd like it all nice and pleasant and whitewashed with people getting stars for favoured articles and doing no good at all . Outrageous. Flamekeeper 23:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war has unsurprisingly started , now one of 'history's great wrongs' is supposedly my pet project . I dispute this entirely. The unanswered questions come from hsitorians over decades and also relates to Ratzinger intervention in US politics . This is a case of censoring the problem , not censoring me . Page protection sought - subject relates to theology , abortion , voting and to historical injustice . Dispute Flamekeeper 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flamekeeper, it might be a serious topic, but to my knowledge not reported worldwide ... or anywhere. It is legitimate to discuss it on one page, but not post it all over wikipedia on pages unrelated or only tangibly related (and the relation to B16, his theology or others are really constructed with an effort). (That leaves me suspicious, that you don't want to discuss, but just spread your accusations as wide as possible. But I don't want to give in to these suspicions). What do I expect you to do? I don't expect anything, but if I could wish, I'd wish you'd switch into a more cooparative and reasonable mood.

As for protecting the "theology of B16": the page is still "a heap of broken images", so protect it now would keep all others from improving it. You, Flamekeeper, are not doing anything in that direction, so don't hinder others from doing it.

And I will answer your post on the Pius XII page.

Str1977 08:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable but your history shows you still , today, knock out all you possibly can , calling it minor . This theological injunction or law is the basis for present intervention in the civil order as well as providing the key to the past . It is a current topic viz. US elections , is in constant use and affecting the world . History in future-if we are lucky- may record present agreement between civil force and the Vatican and show how this is again changing the world : what is the extent of Washington's axis to Rome ? What is the anti-liberal agenda ? What , in fact, is going on now from Iraq back through the arcs of the Caucasus and the Mediterranean ? Surely it is ever more vital that the real 1930's history be understood and it is a responsibility to reveal it clearly as a lesson in how not to proceed towards belligerence . Str1977 and others are trying to make this impossible , therefore there is only protection or abandonment . Cyberspace is at war over this issue-apologists desperately mount rear-guard history against burgeoning attack . It is worldwide per se . Do people want to live in a re-constructed phoney world and is the wikipedia to become a pillar of this re-creationism ? The Vatican -Hitler accords are descibed by others more competent than myself as a classic kick-back scheme and as the great scandal. I warn all readers that this may indeed be happening again-that the forces of exclusionary reactionsim will use the forth-coming ecological crises to effectively abolish democracy . We will vote to approve this and history will repeat itself . The right will have their eye on the future and will pre-empt the alternative left ecologist solutions . The Vatican already sides with the right but will increasingly support these moves as with the last US elections and as in pre-nazi Germany . Battle will eventually be joined and once again the Vatican will have directly contravened its own Law stated in Humanae Vitae by siding with domination and war and all that is repulsive to the moral order of man . Look to yourselves readers, fear greatly and study the history of Pacelli /Pope Pius XII and realise that this is not then-but now . Count the corpses. Flamekeeper 10:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The great scandal is indeed this gigantic smearing campaign going since the 1960s, portraying Hitler's enemies as his friends. If Pius XII is Hitler's Pope, than Churchill is Hitler's Prime Minister, Roosevelt is Hitler's President and de Gaulle is Hitler's General.

The other great scandal is your constant equation of GWB, as bad as he might be, as Hitler-like. Where is the Washington-Vatican axis, you ask? Where was it in Iraq, I ask? There is no axis.

You want to count corpses? Unfortunately abortion facilities are much more effective in discarding them than any crematory ever was.

And, I think, we should not discuss issues on this page, look at Pius XII talk, my reply is up

Goodday Str1977 11:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy directory

Is currently subject to a VfD. The VfD notice has been removed/defaced 4 times. Ultramarine 23:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No longer being removed. silsor 02:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

May 6, 2005

Sathya Sai Baba

An anonymnous editor, who apparently has access to a variety of IP addresses, is repeatedly cutting out the last part of this article. The aim is apparently to remove some external links, but the anon is also deleting templates and categories in the process. I removed one of the links that appeared to be inappropriate, but that hasn't stopped the deletions. I have tried to communicate, but no luck so far, partly because they use a different IP every time. Protecting the page seems severe, but I don't know of any other alternative. Any ideas? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anon has stopped reverting. Request withdrawn. -Willmcw 01:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism

(transferred over from Vandalism In Progress)

Multiple users engaging in concerted vandalism campaign to erase all substance from the Islamofascism article after their VfD attempt failed.

Respectfully request Admins lock the article to either the 16:54. 6 May 2005 reversion of jpgordon's vandalism or else the 04:08. 3 May 2005 version (prior to User:Grace Note's initial vandalism).

--Also regards the following admins: User:Mel Etitis and User:SqueakBox who are ADMINS and have been part of the vandalism, both in spurious reversions and in abusing Admin authority by banning users for countering the vandalism.

I am not, of course, an admin. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR##User:129.7.35.205 who may be a sockpuppet of User:129.7.35.205, --SqueakBox 17:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected. Using multiple IPs to bypass 3RR blocking is bad faith. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are a ~~fucking~~ lunatic.

REMOVING CONTENT FROM WIKIPEDIA IS VANDALISM.

That includes Grace Note's original gutting of the article.

I call admin abuse on you, jpgordon. THAT was the worst example of bad faith I've ever seen. Abusing your own admin powers to protect your own vandalism.

So take it to WP:RFC; I'll happily submit to comment and, if necessary, arbitration on this or any of my actions. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection is necessary to stop one side subverting the 3RR rule while the other (Muslim) side respects it. That is what cannot be tolerated, so Gordon was right, --SqueakBox 18:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The page protection was asked for, by ME (and no I'm not a sock puppet you raving islamist) after a bunch of Muslim sock puppets angry that their VfD didn't work threw a vandalism campaign at the original page, complete with an admin backing them up and throwing bans around. The fact that jpgordon decided to protect his own vandalism is nothing short of ridiculous.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

At least three reversions today. Request page be protected until we can get the IP blocked. --Mitsukai 18:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usenet.kooks

Request for unprotection. A private individual has objected to the way he's been named as a kook in this article, and engaged in a revert war to delete his name, which led to page protection. Ed Poor and I would like to try to reword the disputed sentence to make it fairer to this person. We can't unprotect it ourselves as we want to edit it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected so you and Ed Poor can deal with it. silsor 18:53, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Silsor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

May 7, 2005

9/11 domestic conspiracy theory

Request for unprotection. Page was protected by an administrator who is involved in a dispute on the page, in violation of policy. Request policy be un-violated, and adminstrator be sanctioned. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:15, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Schapelle Corby

Request for protection from removal of link to Corby family authorised, official Schapelle Corby website. Grace Note has removed this link twice and should be prevented from further vandalism. Grace Note's opinion of the content of the official website is irrelevant. OF COURSE the site has a bias toward Schapelle Corby- it is HER website! It is a completely appropriate piece of information for an encyclopaedic entry on Schapelle Corby. -- 211.30.134.147 (talk · contribs) 01:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC) ^diff

This is an obviously inappropriate form of protection being requested; anon user who posted it (I've added the attrubution) also listed this at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Grace Note — which I also feel is inappropriate. I agree that the link is appropriate to the article, but would not characterize Grace Note's edits as vandalism; this is a difference of opinion over content. See: Talk:Schapelle Corby. — Davenbelle 10:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

Request for protection. This page has come under the attacks by the same anon for months on end with no repreive in sight, and has recently ignited into another round of reverts. This is the second time it has to come under protection, I have to add, and both are for the same reasons.--Huaiwei 10:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon IP has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the thirteen-revert rule. Will be protected if necessary. -- Curps 10:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 8, 2005

Thule society

Request for unprotection. Improperly protected, protecting admin now gone. Sam Spade 12:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was fully properly protected, and I advise any admin considering otherwise to read the diffs in the page history. silsor 13:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

How about you just unprotect the page? Your not involved in the talk page, and are obviously not going to be. References have been provided, what is your goal here? Until you explain yourself I am forced to assume this is all some sort of grandstanding power play based on my "impertinence" in questioning your authority. Sam Spade 13:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with leaving it to the judgment of other admins while I'm gone? Like on this page, for example? And what do you need me to explain? That references showing some people believe a certain wacko conspiracy theory makes it okay to copy-n-paste that theory into Wikipedia articles as fact, not discuss it, and vandalise other pages when you don't get your way? All I asked was for other admins to consider the page history themselves when unprotecting, there's no need to assume I'm plotting your demise. silsor 13:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I agree that the page history should be looked into, hence Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Silsor. What I see a problem with is you protecting the page and leaving, without discussing the matter on the talk page. I was there, trying to discuss. i still am. I've yet to see you make a coherant case for reverting and protecting without discussing. Sam Spade 13:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the page is under the thumb of wiki admins, and that users like me simply have no place editing it. [47].

Sam Spade 13:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the diff. illustrates, I made some uncontroversial edits to the English, and wikified the headers. The worry I have about the content (the etmyology of the term "Thule") I took to the Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice. Sam Spade 14:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I had remembered the rules wrongly. I hope that everyone (except, of course, SS) will accept that this was an honest mistake. I'd thought that uncontroversial tidying by someone uninvolved with the article would be OK, but I was wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the page. Further discussion should go to Talk:Thule Society. JRM · Talk 14:56, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Cat

The dispute which led to the cat article being protected has been resolved.

Could an admin please unprotect the cat article, which has now been protected for nearly a month!! Psychofox 14:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 9, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 9, 2005.

May 10, 2005

Henry Kissinger

Having used up his three reverts (again), Trey Stone has found a novel way to revert this page. Can I ask for two admins to get involved? One to revert his changes, the other to protect the page. If one agrees that Stone is seeking to game the system, please both revert and protect it. Grace Note 00:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what's the "novel way" he has found of reverting? I can't see anything unusual from the page history. silsor 22:25, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Forcey Christian Middle School

An anonymous user (IP: 69.140.134.227) has consistently added comments that are not necessary and/or are damaging to the page. Is it possible to allow only the original author, Quantescape, editing rights to the page, and possibly the ability to give this irght to others.

Edits include incorrect comments about the school, its staff and other attributes.

It's not possible to allow only one person to edit the page, but it is possible to warn and block that user from editing (comments like this one are the type of vandalism we deal with every day). silsor 22:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Death squad

Continuous unwarranted re-adding of unsubstianted claim of U.S. support for FRAPH. J. Parker Stone 22:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

~~Same old J. Parker Stone 22:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)~~ Modified to "User:Grace Note continues to purge the intro of any potentially unsavory Castro-related facts -- presumably, anyone who disagrees is a "right-wing POVista" (probably in the employ of the nefarious CIA) J. Parker Stone 01:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

And her revertions are constant, she's approaching three reverts now. Kapil 01:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced more than a temporary lock (6 hours?) would be useful. Unfortunately it is best I think to let people revert up to 3 times then block them, SqueakBox 02:07, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what Grace Note thinks of the latest revert, which is a middle ground between her version and the previous one. If she continues reverting I'm proposing she be blocked for a while. Kapil 02:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war going on. It would be nice for a moderator to try and present a non-POV version (without the terms "greatly", using the term "regime" [as Fidel Castro's Cuba is certainly not a democracy]), and to lock out the page to stop the stupid revert war (changing only based on what is said in the article discussion page). Also, the reversion back to the picture with Fidel Castro smoking a Cohiba is just plain idiotic. Finally, stats were presented though still awesomly ignored by some of the more unenlightened users (including, but not restricted to, User:Grace Note and User:Comandante). Kapil 03:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil has reverted the article 5 times. Perhaps there is another solution, --SqueakBox 03:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd support protection. There are two incompatible versions which it will take time to reconcile. Mark ¹ 03:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from an edit war. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt at intervention, but editing on this article has actually calmed down in the last few days. Protection is no longer necessary. Mark ¹ 09:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would too. quite frankly i don't have the patience to continually edit with someone who thinks that a basic fact like "repression in Cuba" (!!) is POV while trumpeting his literacy campaign and healthcare system as if they're what he's known for. J. Parker Stone 04:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theology of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Pius XII

Revert war has unsurprisingly started , now one of 'history's great wrongs' is supposedly my pet project . I dispute this entirely. The unanswered questions come from hsitorians over decades and also relates to ratzinger intervention in US politics . This is a case of censoring the problem , not censoring me . Page protection sought - subject relates to theology , abortion , voting and to historical injustice . Dispute Flamekeeper 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 11, 2005

Power Rangers and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

An anonymous user keeps on changing the debut year from 1993 to 1994. Power Rangers debuted in 1993! Andros 1337 01:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So revert him. If he keeps it up, report it on vandalism in progress and someone will block the IP. Protection isn't necessary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfd

It sees too many edits daily, some of them radical. We should decide on a good layout through discussion on its talk page, and stick with that, rather than keep changing it back-and-forth. Especially as it's usually Subst'ed. R adiant _* 10:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

No changes since the 15th of May. Archiving this request in a day or so. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia ni Cristo

One user (Onlytofind) insists on having four "con" sites against the Iglesia ni Cristo (which is Filipino for "Church of Christ"). Why is having so many "con" sites necessary (there's only ONE "pro" site) when the far better-known Jehovah's Witnesses site has only one "con" site listed, and the billion-member Catholic Church site has NO "con" sites whatsoever? While I don't want limits set on freedom of speech, there needs to be some kind of sensible proportionality. If there needs to be "con" sites, then they should be in some kind of proportion to the "pro" sites. gcessor

I don't think there should necessarily be some sort of strict rule requiring an equal number of "pro" and "con" sites for any topic, since the number of actual suitable sites out there may vary; there could simply be a lot more on one side than the other. However, some selectivity to keep only the ones that best present their respective viewpoint, excluding content-free sites and blatant crackpottery, might be sensible (but subjective). *Dan* 20:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that line of thought necessitates edit wars. The 'con' supporter feels that all four are necessary, while IMO much of what is on each of the 'con' sites is not substantially different from what's on the other 'con' sites. If limits on the proportion of 'pro' and 'con' sites cannot be set, then it forces those from both sides to have an edit war.--71.32.86.239 10:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the Talk:Iglesia Ni Cristo page:

You've already shown that you're unwilling to adhere by the rules of the Wikipedia, as shown by your recent defiance of the arbitrary decision made by sysop User:LBMixPro.The article as it stands is already slightly tilted in favor of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and , I can fairly include much of the content from the "Con" sites into this article under the current Wikipedia NPOV rules as long since I have corroborating evidence and would label it as being so but choose not to, due to the dearth of pro-INC sites. You already know that there aren't any pro-INC sites out there because the administration doesn't want members discussing non-approved topics about the Iglesia ni Cristo online, and that's the reason why the pro-INC sites were probably shut down too. Every fair and reasonable person would understand that a site listed in the 'Con' section presents information not favorable to the INC, and can choose to view it, or not view it and interpret the information as he or she wishes. --Onlytofind 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 12, 2005

Allan Nairn, Amy Goodman, Isle of Youth, Suharto, Corporate media

Davenbelle has shown himself to be quite the obnoxious and uncompromising POV warrior. J. Parker Stone 06:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. The same could be said for T.S. himself. -- Viajero 11:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have fucking explained myself again and again, but you kids can't fucking compromise on anything less than anti-American tinged POV. J. Parker Stone 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see: Wikipedia:Profanity — Davenbelle 07:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/June 2004 (2)

For some reason, the log for this month (and only this month) is protected and classified in Category:Wikipedia deletion. Is there any point to that? R adiant _* 12:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

None that I can see. Any tampering will show up in the history, so there's no reason to have this protected. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems User:Docu protected a bunch of log archives (see Wikipedia:Protection log/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Protection log/Archive 2); I don't know why. I didn't see this one among them, though. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 13, 2005

George W. Bush

A couple of pretty severe content disputes, evidence of sock puppetry (see block log entries on Elkabong (talk · contribs) and KaintheScion (talk · contribs), 22:59 UTC, 12 May). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High visibility pages, especially those on current US presidents, are not protected... since they are reverted and maintained by many users. Usually blocking the problematic users are far more effective in cases where pages are highly controversial. Besides, I asked for page protection against vandalism, and that was denied. I think the page itself is under good care of good editors, and that you should attempt to deal with problematic users individually. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFK (redirect page)

Someone keeps pasting a copy of JFK (disambiguation) over this redirect. I'd protect it myself but I think it's borderline--could be interpreted as a content dispute rather than vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last revert was in 13 May 2005. Nothing new has happened. Will archive this request soon. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zanskar

Mr Tan (talk · contribs) persists in placing the {{gcheck}} template on this artiucle, despite it having no grammatical problems, and editing it so as to introduce numerous grammatical errors (see the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan for context). The other editors on the page are happy with the article as it is, and Mr Tan's work amounts to vandalism. I'm now too involved to protect it myself, but I think that it needs protection for a while, until Mr Tan can be brought to see that his attitude to Wikipedia has to change. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done Broken Segue 11:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 14, 2005

Iranian_physics_news

Can someone explain to the creator of this article that he does not have the ability to protect the article. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C. and Danny McGrain

User Jimbo79 has removed the NPOV flags from these pages without addressing the issues here, and has claimed that these are minor edits. PatGallacher 23:16, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

There is no point of view issues with either of these pages Jimbo79 00:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Jimbo79 has removed the NPOV flags from these pages without addressing the issues here, and has claimed that these are minor edits. PatGallacher 23:16, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

User Jimbo79 has also deleted these pages from this list of pages requested for protection, they have now been restored, this seems like flagrant vandalism. PatGallacher 00:39, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
- - PatGallacher seems to be the only person with an issue, the fact is he is a Celtic fan trying to vandalise the Rangers page. Jimbo79 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this in the talk settled the argument:" If you, or Rangers F.C., want to refute the allegation that Rangers had a ban on Catholic players from roughly World War I to the signing of Mo Johnson then you have one perfectly simple solution. Name one openly Roman Catholic player they played during that period! You can't, can you!"

"John Spencer, was Catholic and played for Rangers before Maurice Johnson"

It appears once you have lost an argument you can't let it go. Jimbo79 23:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher is the vandal constantly trying to bring in false information to these two pages, how ironic that he chooses to accuse me of being a vandal. Why is this information still on this page? Surely the argument is non-existent and this being here is wrong. Jimbo79 10:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Karatekid7 (talk · contribs) vandalised this page by attempting to remove this entry. However I would like to suspend this request while I look into some issues, but I would like to keep this entry here for the time being as a historical record, if that's OK. PatGallacher 15:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

May 15, 2005

Avenue of Stars

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) refused to make the article uniformed to either British or American spellings, and subsequently removed the {{twoversions}} tag from the article. — Insta ntnood 11:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

damn straight I did, I wrote it. It's in American English and I reverted your conversion to BE right along with text you cut and pasted from other websites. This isn't a valid request for protection. SchmuckyTheCat 18:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
also, the page has been stable since April 26, with my version, except for edits adding and removing his bogus twoversions template. protecting the page preserves my version, so I don't understand his purpose. If he wants to cool down an edit war - he's three weeks too late. SchmuckyTheCat 18:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relevent policies: Manual of Style (#Usage and spelling and #National varieties of English) and Manual of Style (spelling).

SchmuckyTheCat wrote in American English, including place names such as Victoria Harbor, while the Commonwealth spelling, i.e. Victoria Harbour, should be supposed to be used. — Insta ntnood 15:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this request. This seems to be a conflict between a persistant user and a user not really listening. Please attempt other venues of conflict resolution before coming here for page protection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goh Chok Tong

The page history says it all. User:Mr_Tan and User:Mel Etitis persist in countless reverts which disrupts attempts by others to contribute to the page.--Huaiwei 14:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Huaiwei's explanation is partial (at least two editors besides me have also been reverting Mr Tan's edits, though I've been the main editor involved), and as Mr Tan is currently blocked for 3RR violations on other articles, there's a breathing space now anyway. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Lavigne

Take a look at the page history. User:Mel Etitis and User:DrippingInk have been engaged in a revert war for several days now which is becoming very disruptive. Neither user seems prepared to call a truce while the issue over capitalization of song names is resolved. Kurt Shaped Box 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly (like the entry below) this again grossly oversimplifies the issues. A look at the page history will indicate that capitalisation is a minor issue; DrippingInk (talk · contribs) has been up-loading copyvio images and adding them to articles, and part of the recent reverting has been related to his attempt to do so in this article, and his refusal to back down despite interventions from other users and admins. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the reason this page needs to be protected while the issue is resolved. Constantly reverting each other's edits serves no purpose other than to raise the tempers of those involved and discourages other users from getting involved with the article. Also consider the three revert rule. Kurt Shaped Box 19:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC) 19:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of it, but in fact it's never been near broken; the reverts have generally been at the rate of one each a day. Protecting the page wouldn't do anything, I'm afraid, except to make sure that instead of other editors being discouraged from editing they'd be prevented from doing so. I've suggested that DrippingInk should be blocked from editing for a period, as his insistence on adding copyvio images is surely vandalism, but I can't do it myself (I'm too involved). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 16, 2005

Cyprus_dispute

~~Snchduer 18:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

There is a revert war going on. User:Argyrosargyrou insists on making the page sound like a Greek Cypriot propaganda page instead of trying to stick to the wikipedia NPOV guidelines. He keeps blocking our attempts to roll back to a relatively neutral version. I request that this page be locked to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=13794372 which actually is itself a revert to an older version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=12348414 ) and locked in order to keep this article NPOV. User:E.A is supporting my request (cf. Talk:Cyprus_dispute). If you feel that action should be taken against the user continuously trying to vandalize this page, go ahead.

~~I agree with reverting and protecting to the neutral page shown above. Thanks, --E.A 18:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed by myself, seeing that there are slight advancements on the editing war; I think it will be better to get a Third Opinion than to try and protect the page. - Snchduer 11:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 17, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 17, 2005.

May 18, 2005

Victor Davis Hanson

I and several other users have had to rv the page because an anonymous user with several different IP addresses has been re-inserting the same stock phrase over and over:

Like many other neo-cons, his views are often considered racist and Islamophobic by those who do not share his extreme right wing views.

I have tried to persuade this user to

Modify the sentence with greater attention to grammar
Source the criticisms of Hanson. He refuses, instead he posts links to Hanson's articles and insists that is proof enough that Hanson is a racist and that his phrasing should be reinserted. Personally, I think it would be fine to have a whole section devoted to criticisms of Hanson. He is a public figure who expounds his views in public fora. One professor at Berkely wrote a book that was a critique of Hanson's and other conservative classicists' views, ostensibly in response to his book Who Killed Homer?. But this user is not making reasonable criticisms, he is using Anonymous Coward tactics to disrupt Wikipedia. Until recently, he refused to engage in debate at all, then on his last edit left a confused diatribe that it will take me awhile to respond to. He used excessive emphasis quotes, which makes it hard to discern sometimes whether he is quoting Hanson, another person, or himself.

I would like to see the page protected from his childish edits while we work out a consensus on a Hanson criticism section. --Jpbrenna 17:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting from edit war. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 19, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 19, 2005.

May 20, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 20, 2005.

May 21, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 21, 2005.

May 22, 2005

There were no requests for protection on May 22, 2005.

May 23, 2005

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

User:Smoddy has taken to repeatedly editing my user page against my wishes. He is involved in a silly little flamewar against me, along with User:Jguk. Blah, blah, the whole thing arose out of a survey about use of styles ("His Holiness" etc.) in WP articles. Smoddy has taken to repeatedly changing my characterization of the issue on my own user page (not even on User_talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, which would be bearable). It would really be easiest just to lock my user page for a little while (but at my version, not Smoddy's :-)), and let them at least carry out their "fatwa in a bottle" on other pages.

I did try adding the protected/vprotected tags myself (but they don't really do anything). But that's probably not the right procedure, since I'm not an admin. If someone can tell be the proper procedure, I would appreciate it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Update': With admonition, Smoddy and proxies seem to be leaving my page alone. SlimVirgin let me know that s/he would handle removing this request when appropriate (as an admin). But for others who stumble here, I withdraw the request. Btw, I've since figured out that {{vprotected}} isn't meant for regular users, only for admins (wouldn't it be nice if the WP software told you this?). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:09, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

There's probably no need for page protection, as Smoddy will violate 3RR if he reverts again, and I've warned him about it, so it's unlikely he'll pursue it. If he does, or if anyone else does on his behalf, I'll protect the page for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I will also watch the page too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have moved this request to its proper place, at the top of the page. Lulu, read WP:NPA. Calling jguk "boorish" is a personal attack, and any user is allowed to remove personal attacks. Of course, if I am really the demon you make me out to be (and I am not), then I would ignore the page protection and revert anyway. I removed the {{Vprotected}} notice because it was incorrect and misleading, and I was well within my rights. I request of you, Lulu, don't make unsubstantiated attacks on my character. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recentchanges

Request unprotecting the page, unless there is any good reason for it to stay protected. Its talk page didn't explain why, at any rate. R adiant _* 20:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The idea of protection in this instance is because the page is so visible. It would be a fantastic target for vandalism, and so should be protected to be safe. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, added to its talk page. R adiant _* 14:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

May 24, 2005

List of kings of Persia

War between users favouring BCE/CE for the article and those maintaining the BC/AD originally used there. Have had involvement with the issue and it would be inappropriate for me to protect it. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2005

Fidel Castro

Please unprotect. This was protected to stop a minor edit war though it has not previously been protected in a major one. I want to do some legit editing, and am being punished for the sins of the reverters. this is an unnecessary protection at a time when the article is undergoing many changes, and needs to be edited, SqueakBox 14:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Done -- Viajero | Talk 15:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

France

In the past three days the France page has had 5 vandalism attacks.

Please sign your comments. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Five attack in three days? Must be a lull. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human

A revert war going on for several days involving a number of editors. Brief protection would require editors to discuss the issues on talk, which some are doing, but others are not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

May 26, 2005

Polytechnic University of New York

Vandalism.

Someone or something (I suspect a bot on an administrator's computer) keeps pasting an obsene image with an innocent name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytechnic_University_of_New_York

The picture is the infamous hello.jpg from the website Goat.cx. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected. I'm glad you said what the image was, otherwise I'd have looked without realizing; instead, I scrolled down very slowly until I got to just the top of it, which was confirmation enough. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thats the first time I saw the image and I was shocked too. I wanted to gouge out my eyes, but then, I won't be able to see the lovely GF. Also, do you think the image can be speedy deleted? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was caused by changing Image:Polysoriginalbuilding.jpg. See Talk:Goatse.cx/Vote for why this can be deleted. It has gone now (a bit of a mess on my part because I did not want to look at the screen) with the original restored, so someone may want to put it back in the article. --Henrygb 03:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otacon

User from the 69.158.*.* IP range keeps adding a paragraph of information based on his own opinions. Despite numerous attempts to ask him to stop or at least explain his position on the talk page, he continues. Suggest leaving it up until he gives up. --Paul Soth 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second the notion. I've sent a private message to the annonymous user that keeps vandalizing the article and so far, he has refused to cooperate. Jonny2x4 12:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid

Anonymous user using dial-ups and sockpuppets to revert seven times in the last few hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

As a point of interest, he has reverted 8 times, using 3 anonymous IPs and 5 sockpuppets, and has been reverted by 5 different editors so far. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 27, 2005

Japanese war crimes

Please see the rambling, pure POV stuff at the head of the article. And the discussion of this at Talk:Japanese war crimes. Grant65 (Talk) 13:25, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana

Persistent attempts to smuggle fundy extremist 666 references into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that the one editor who is doing thishas in fact broken the 3RR rule, and clearly would if they edited the article in this way again today, so hopefully the article will not need protection. This editor has no support for his stance, SqueakBox 16:15, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

offtopic.com

Targeted for vandalism, on VfD. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 28, 2005

anus

Recurring anon edits to insert a useless photograph, plus the odd disclaimer and anal-sex-related vandalism. Please protect until we can work this out formally, thank you. Jeeves 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hephaestos

A user (206.213.157.4) vandalized Hephaestos' talk page twice on english Wikipedia. I reported the user about this yesterday at AMA Requests for Assistance. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus dispute

Argyrosargyrou keeps removing stuff from the lead without discussing it. Also called people who critized his fork Cyprus Issue saying "The reason why this page exists is because the page titled Cyprus dispute has been hijacked by Turkish extremists and apologists" (now on Talk:Cyprus dispute). Please protect to force discussion. Mgm|^(talk) 18:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This was apparently protected by Jnc, 04:26, 29 May 2005. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Byrne

Some anonymous user keeps making changes to this page, removing a lot of the facts. I believe this page should be placed under protection until or unless this editor gives his or her reasons for the dits. --66.189.63.91 19:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for now. Mgm|^(talk) 19:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

May 29, 2005

Erano Manalo

The same problem on the Felix Manalo page. User emico continuously places a baseless claim disputing the factuality of this article and on the talk page, continuously complains about wanting this article to be written in a way flattering to the subject of this article. --Onlytofind 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you would just cite your sources, I would'nt question the factuality of your entries. After all, your talking about a living leader of a religious organization. If you say something deragatory and unfounded, you could get sued. Emico 07:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about inaccurate information, why don't you bring it to others' attention what you feel is inaccurate so it can be changed? You need to read LBMixPro's post on the INC talkpage about how there are no authoritative written sources. regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo or the Manalo family. What you obviously want is to turn that article into a flattering description of Mr. Manalo written according to the viewpoint of the INC, which is not in accordance with the policy of the Wikipedia. As for lawsuits, there is nothing on that page which I have contributed that cannot be proven and isn't neutral. If I were you, I would stop the hearsay and gossip about other people here before I find myself slapped with a libel lawsuit. --Onlytofind 08:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated "there are no authoritative written sources". Then, it should'nt bother you if I label the article to be without source. Emico 15:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Manalo

User emico continuously places a baseless claim disputing the factuality of this article and on the talk page, continuously complains about wanting this article to be written in a way flattering to the subject of this article. --Onlytofind 04:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bereans

Users Onlytofind, Raygirvan and DJ Clayworth take turns removing my edit. I have provided authoritative source. They show bias toward a website based in the Philippines. In my wildest suspicion, this website is using wikipedia to appear legitimate, as wikipedia entries appear in other websites such http://www.explore-society.com. Emico 07:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are being delusional to the point of libel, by accusing the three of us by being the same person who has nothing better to do then "gang up" on you. Have you ever realized that your personal beliefs and opinions are not welcome here and are not authoritative? You don't like me posting my personal opinions, what makes you think yours are canonical? Start a webpage or a blog, but don't vandalize the Wikipedia. If you want to write a smear job about another religion because they say bad things about yours, do it somewhere else!--Onlytofind 08:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to having the page protected. I'm requesting to have it protected with the 17:24, May 29, 2005 version of the article. Since it is the version that has legitimate sources, and hasn't had most of the article omitted. Please note that Emico's actions on the article and Wikipedia has led other users to create Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 08:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
The article was intended to trace the history of the 'Berean' sect from when it was founded by John Barclay up to the current. I noted on the article that one of the doctrines that protestant kept was the trinity doctrine. They removed this and my source link from Easton's bible dictionary about the trinity and added a source 'sola scriptura', a protestant doctrine aimed against catholics. That is when I noticed their bias. 'Sola scriptura' meant that the sole basis for their faith was the bible. The protestants believe in the trinity. Eason's bible dictionary states that the trinity is not biblical. LBMixPro, Onlytofind, Raygirvan and DJ Clayworth together removed my contributions and kept their bias view on this article. Emico 15:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 30, 2005

Main Page Images & Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 30

Three of four images currently on the Main Page need to be {{Mprotected}}. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 30 also needs to be protected. Right now, the Main Page is very vulnerable to vandalism. -- 14:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Genocide

Argyrosargyrou (talk · contribs) has been revertign to a very PoV version of the page, including a VfD notice placed there as an editing gambit (the VfD is over and the page passed). Argyrosargyrou's view (here and elsewhere) is that anyone who disagrees with him is a Turkish propagandist, probably in the pay of the Turkish government (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Argyrosargyrou), so discussion is impossible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's now reverted again, leaving the page not only a flimsy mess, but with a PoV and a (false) VfD notice. I can't revert again, so could whoever protects the page check, and if you don't want to revert the page entirely, at least remove the VfD notice? Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusa Province

please protect Ragusa Province from being moved to Province of Ragusa, Provincia di Ragusa or any other idea User:Giano comes up with. All other Provinces of Italy are named X Province no province in the world is called by native names like Provinz, provincia, propinsi, ... Maybe you have to move it to Ragusa Province before protecting. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done (protected from moves only). – ugen64 01:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tides of Blood

ScrewedThePooch (talk · contribs) insists on adding non-encyclopedaic material to Tides of Blood, and has reverted my edits to remove it as vandalism. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if he does it again before protecting. Broken Segue

May 31, 2005

Abortion

Page is suffering from edit wars. 08:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Germany

I'm afraid this has descended into mass deletions and personal attacks. There are some of us out here who would like to get on with editing instead of having to deal with the constant edit wars, disputes and name calling. I don't quite know how protecting the talk page would help, but something has got to be done. Rednaxela 13:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)- Calling people Nazis is definitely not the behaviour of a good wikipedian and this page is letting the entire concept down.[reply]

I'd prefer not to protect a talk page since they'd have no place to discuss the conflict (user talk pages I guess). Try another dispute resoltuion method. (new sig) This page is Broken 17:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

This page and, more recently, its talk page have been vandalized on a daily basis by either one anon or (more likely) a group of anons (in the page history, you see an IP address where only the last set of numbers vary). Repeated requests to discontinue vandalism have been ignored. In every pass, the same IP address performs several edits, all of them acts of vandalism. I've already gotten the support of Yamla, the user that, along with myself, has been helping to contain the daily (and sometimes, several times a day) attacks on the article. We (Yamla and myself) request that the article be blocked for a period of a month (I feel that a week would not suffice to discourage the vandal(s) and get them to finally move on). It should also be noted that the article has not received any edits to add to or improve its valid content in some time. All that goes on there right now is vandalism and our reverting of it. Regards, Redux 16:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

protected Broken Segue

Thanks, that was very fast. --Yamla 17:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

June 1, 2005

List of transgendered people

An anonymous AOL editor from VA (205.188.117.*, 64.12.117.5, 152.163.101.5) has been systematically removing three entries on the list over the last few months, by covering over the deletions by adding other edits in the article. The individual has now recently reverted to the old tactic of strategically placing internal notes within the article to hide the three entries from public viewing. Megan1967 10:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted one of the edits by the anon user 152.163.101.5. JamesBurns 22:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

An anonymous user continually removes the paragraph on ER's relationship with Lorena Hickok. His entry of 5/31 reveals quite clearly that his reasons for doing so violate NPOV. An edit war is brewing and I'd like to cut it off. Assistance in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Jliberty 12:25, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've withdrawn this request as things have settled down. Thanks. Jliberty 15:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Would anybody have the initiative to unprotect the page, please? Nine days have passed and there are no more ongoing debates. It was protected to stop an edit war.

Tan 21:41, Jun 1 2005 (UTC)

I'll unprotect it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

David Bret AND Nick Adams

This request for page protection in accordance with official Wikipedia:Protection policy that states - "A temporary protection is used for: Protecting a page or image that has been a recent target of persistent vandalism." The anonymous user 80.141.191.101 (dynamic IP address) keeps inserting information that is without factual reference or proof. It appears they may be part of the gay-bashers who try to alienate straight people against members of the gay community by deliberating targeting popular personalities so as to make it appear that the gay community condones and practises "gay by association". Ted Wilkes 21:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats's the limit! Sorry, I'm heterosexual, neither gay nor "part of the gay-bashers". Could it be that Ted Wilkes is the same User:JillandJack who wants to cast aspersions on show business biographer David Bret for his opinion that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams and may have been bisexual or gay, an accusation supported by The King's stepmother? Therefore, this user constantly tries to expunge any reference to that claim. For most people in Hollywood it is a fact that Nick Adams was gay. For factual reference or proof, see Talk:Nick Adams. For the whole dispute, see also Talk:David Bret and Talk:Elvis Presley.

both pages are now protected. David Bret by DropDeadGorgias, Nick Adams by me. Thryduulf 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 2, 2005

AIDS conspiracy theories

Ongoing edit war over the inclusion of Template:TitleDisputed. I would protect but I reverted once and am mildly involved in the dispute. – ugen64 01:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My own talk page

Would it be possible to have my own talk page protected for a while? It may seem like a strange request: but I was dumb enough to support a "Request for Comment" on some POV-bully. He took the opportunity for a wide-spread attack on me on this Request-page as well as involved talk-pages and is now starting insults, threats and the like on my user-page. RFC's, from what I see, can be up for months, so if I wanted to stay out of this I would have to leave the site for months, which of course would block my productivity. (I have also withdrawn my support for the RFC in response to the bullying, so no one would have any business contacting me about it.) Other users (I am mainly doing translations) would probably know how to contact me anyway, if my talk page were protected. So I want my talk page protected.--Fenice 05:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5K_Celebration

Page is experiencing persistant vulgar vandalism, please protect. wackyvorlon

Talk:Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen

I requested earlier that the article Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen be blocked to deal with vandalism. Less than 48 hours after BrokenSegue blocked the page, the vandals turned to the talk page of the article. They have started altering words in other people's comments there (even older comments). There were four or five acts of vandalism there today. This is not unprecedented in this talk page, but vandalism had been focused on the article itself. Now, I believe strongly that the attacks will turn to the talk page in full trottle (as I said, five attacks just today). Since there are no active discussions going on in the article, I request that the talk page be blocked for a while, the same as the article, otherwise I fear the vandals will not move on. Regards, Redux 22:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am hesitant to protect discussion pages (as I have said before). I'll add it to my watchlist and will actively block the IPs. Let's see if that works. This link is Broken 06:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 3, 2005

University of California, Los Angeles

This article has been the focus of a protracted (7+ days) edit war between a single anonymous user (a constantly shifting dynamic IP; 69.231.*) and at least nine other editors, including myself. Most of the last 100 edits are reverts concerning this dispute. In response to overwhelming opposition, the anon has said s/he is "unstoppable". -- Hadal 06:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Mark ¹ 07:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iris Chang

Standard anti-Chang propagandist at work; adding nonsensical POV material, being utterly unbending in talk and I suspect not having the level of English required to understand our NPOV policy (is there a Japanese translation of it somewhere?). While he has reached 3 reverts already today, he will certainly be back soon unless the page is protected, and the same material has been added by a number of anon IPs which may or may not be the same person.The user's latest rv was his fourth today, so I'd ask that an admin restore and protect the neutral version. Mark ¹ 07:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this merits protection. If anything its a 3RR issue, where this has already been reported. As for the Japanese translation of the NPOV poilicy the best I can give you is ja:Wikipedia:中立的な観点, which is the interlanguage link to the Japanese Wikipedia from WP:NPOV. I can't read Japanese and so I don't know how similar to our NPOV policy's wording it is. Thryduulf 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help:Contents

This page has been hijacked several times by User:218.102.21.186. He/she has also hijacked several other pages. 68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions 14:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= Hibernian F.C.

Has drawn attacks from this web board, should be reverted then protected. --BesigedB ^(talk) 15:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 as protected this page. Thryduulf 16:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Birmingham

Seemingly endless edit war between several contributors, protecting it for a few days might let things clam down. Protection has already been requested in an edit summary [48]. G-Man 20:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is talk of an RfC at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board but at least until then I agree that a cooling off period would help. Protected. Thryduulf 21:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Perhaps this page itself, ironically enough, needs protection... Ted Wilkes and some anonymous multiple-IP user have been edit-warring over comments under David Bret AND Nick Adams, and both are in violation of the three-revert policy. *Dan* 20:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed that section from this page, hopefully that will help. Thryduulf 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This was a good idea. I don't know why user Ted Wilkes frequently deleted my comment.

Wilkes is continuing to vandalize this page, now deleting comments from the Elvis Presley entry. *Dan* 17:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Repeated vandalism by User:80.141.209.175 and 23 other IP addresses whose only contribution is to three articles, each of which is interconnected. I have made a request for action for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Ted Wilkes 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected. smoddy 21:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. "One of the things that makes the Wikipedia great is that anybody can contribute." What's wrong with contributing only to a handful of articles under a dynamic IP address? Please note that adding some comment on the present page is not vandalism. But constantly deleting these comments, as you did, IS repeated vandalism! -- User:80.141.226.156

Gasoline/Petrol

War going on over UK/US spelling. I changed the name to Gasoline/Petrol which will satisfy nobody, but it should at least end hostilities. [[User:Bastique|'''<{{unicode|ℬ}}astique''']]{{unicode|▼}}[[User talk:Bastique|'''talk''']] 23:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, does it still need protecting? --khaosworks 01:09, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

"Gasoline/Petrol" just looks horrid, and I notice that it puts the form you favour before the form the other party favours (which is where the article was before you moved it). I've moved it back. (And don't use "Protected" as an edit summary when it's not protected, please). Proteus (Talk) 08:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it benefit from a page move protection? Thryduulf 12:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 4, 2005

Papal Tiara

Anonymous vandal (68.45.81.193) is repeatedly vandalizing the page. Frankchn 15:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need, the vandal has been blocked: 15:36, 4 Jun 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:68.45.81.193" with an expiry time of 24 hours (constant revertion of featured article.) [49]. Thryduulf 15:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feces

Anon and User:Eyeon keep adding a rather revolting picture of human feces to this article. Nohat 23:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected by User:CesarB.

June 5, 2005

Tsushima Islands

I'm now asking for a second unprotection to this page. While the first time it was protected to stop an edit war (I was not involved), the second time was protected due to a NPOV factual dispute. It seems to have simmered down, however. Anybody is free to visit Talk:Tsushima Islands.

Mr Tan 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Mr Tan

As soon as the page was unprotected last time, Mr Tan leapt in and made a string of mostly controversial edits, hence its re-protection. His increasingly peculiar and confrontational messages on the Talk page don't instil confidence that he'll behave differently if it's unprotected again, and nor do some of his recent comments:

"This is causing in the increasing number of articles needing attention, and consensus, to me, is not perfectly reliable."[50]

"If all of you want consensus, but the thing is wrong itself in reality, this makes wikipediaimperfect"[51]. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what you think; others may not necessarily have such difficulties like you. Anybody is free to ask questions on my talk page if you have any doubts about my comments; otherwise ignore his messages.

I have already made my comments at Talk:Tsushima Islands, but since they have no further comments, despite the fact that I have been strongly encouraging them to post any points that they have doubts. I have in fact, posted some of them, but it seems that they do not have any further comments with the remainder, assuming that they have agreed with me. With that, I suggest unprotection. Questions, however, will still be fully entertained.

Mr Tan Mr Tan 07:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Bret

This is a necessary second request for page protection following further repeated edits by the same anonymous Vandal. This page protection is necessary pending resolution through my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Ted Wilkes 17:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes seems to have unclean hands in his disputes, as he's guilty of violating the 3-revert policy, deleting others' critical comments from this page, and treating the fact of another user making edits anonymously as if it were a policy violation itself. *Dan* 17:23, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

~~In my opinion, Ted Wilkes is identical with users NightCrawler and JillandJack who are, or repeatedly were, under a Wikipedia hard ban. See User:DW.~~

Protected until dispute sorted out on Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's worrying that Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) has tried to delete other editors' comments from this page, describing it in his edit summary as "Removed vandalism" ([52]). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted is currently on a 24 hour timeout for violating the 3RR with his comment removal on this page. His opposite number should also be banned, but I haven't done this as I don't understand how to calculate an IP range (someone may have done this already, but see WP:AN3 for details). Thryduulf 08:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 6, 2005

Anarchism

Requesting because User:Hogeye has made substantial edits and reverts that do not reflect the agreed-upon scope and purpose of the article that came out of the last dispute resolution process. I've been referring this user to the talk pages archives and they have not responded except by (ironically) repeating the same arguments that did not fly in the past. See Talk:Anarchism/Archive16 to see the past dispute resolution process. --albamuth 01:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iris Chang

Renewed request. This has been going on for a week now. Mark ¹ 01:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Both sides have reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. Thryduulf 08:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Task Force

User:24.193.128.76 is trying to make the JTF article into some sort of glorification brochureware. JTF is known, even by the ADL, to be a racist organization which a 2 minute google search or even a visit to their website will prove. Yet this user constatly removed the negative aspects of this ¨group¨, even going as far as calling JTF a ¨civil rights organziation¨!!!

Attempts in the discussion page have been fruitless. User:24.193.128.76 removes other users comments regarding JTF´s racist leanings and does nothing but make personal attacks and threats against the other editors. Mr MoJo 07:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page, having first returned to a version without the editorial attacks. It's pretty bad, though, and certainly deserves its PoV tag. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 7, 2005

Justin Hall

Repeated vandalisms from IP 12.9.33.203, on both main and talk pages. Please protect these pages - some nasty personal attacks and objectionable additions are being made from this person. Thanks! --NightMonkey 00:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

Neutral point of view cannot be achieved - conflicting definition of "anarchism." Anarcho-socialist and anarcho-capitalist dispute will not allow a stable page. Ergo, a Wiki-style disambiguation page is offered. This way, both can have their preferred defs. Asking to protect the disambiguation page, rather than a partisan page. --Hogeye 04:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: alternate request for page protection on the same page below. --cesarb 00:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 8, 2005

Joe Scarborough

Neutral point of view cannot be achieved - conflict of a paragraph over Lori Klausutis in the article. However, the matter is up for RFC and the people who keep on deleting the paragraph are just deleting it with no explaination - and it has caused a revert war. Respectfuly Request protection until the two sides can come to agreement on this paragraph. Conradrock 06:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There certainly was an edit war on that article, but I see no evidence of it having continued after 5 June. If it flares up again, feel free to request again. Thryduulf 17:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 9, 2005

Alexander the Great had homoerotic sex

Please, isn't this an online encyclopedia for all ages? What will my children think? Besides, I have done Ancient greek history at University for 3 years and there was hardly any evidence that Alexander was truly gay. This is pure speculation based on one-sided evidence. Please review Alexander's personal life as this is hardly academic encyclopedia material. Using common logic, I believe his personal life should be removed, however the editors refuse to do so.--203.59.165.41 18:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

A series of anonymous editors are continually restoring grammatical errors and eliminating factual content without explanation. McPhail 19:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This madness is continuing 2 days later. Same anonymous editor (64.12.117.5), who is doing the same thing on several other pages.Zpb52 06:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

June 10, 2005

Iris Chang

Please unprotect. Discussion has died down, and hopefully reason can prevail. Mark ¹ 04:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Anybody who has been on RC patrol for more than 10 minutes has reverted this page at least once, I think it was protected earlier and then got unprotected, and everyone dove on it. --Sysop073 05:26, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Sega Dreamcast

Just started a Edit War, the anonymous and User:Marvelvsdc simply ignores the talk page changing the console image many times in this week. --Mateusc 21:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 11, 2005

Sturmgrenadier

There's an edit war going on between myself an another editor, who has seemed to have created an account (after vandalizing the page before) simply to edit this page after realizing that vandalism and childish behavior doesn't cut it here. Dispute is between User:Siegmund and User:ChronoSphere. If anyone wants to take a stab at resolution, its all on the talk pages. Thanks. ChronoSphere 00:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maryam_Rajavi

There is a user here with IP: 69.233.169.62 who keeps vandanlizing the page Maryam_Rajavi. He has done it more than 7 times. Please note at the beggining he kept calling me and my friend Hanifjazayeri "terrorists", then he made a series of charges and asked for the answers. I answered them all on the Talk page. So now after I answered all his false statements, he is being rude and offensive, and has gone back to square one and is again calling me "terrorist" and he keeps vandalising the page. I spent a lot of time and energy in writing the biography for Wikipedia. This is not fair! Sometimes he signs in with an IP, but near the beggining he used a false name so I fear that he may do the same again. Can someone please check this out and protect the page? --RezaKia 09:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He has broken the 3RR, and he has a warning on his talk page already from a previous occasion, so he has been blocked. I would note that if you revert again soon, you will also be blocked. smoddy 10:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user with IP: 69.233.169.62 has broken the 3RR three times in total. I wrote an article and he keeps changing the facts and uses abusive language. Can someone please take a look. I would appreciate that. --RezaKia 14:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have broken that rule more than him. It is way too obvious that you ARE a member of that terrorist organization, and you may find one stupid admin who would fall for your tricks, but fortunately, there are some real admins here also who first look into things before they take action. Now crawl back to your terrorist cell, mujahed.

1. Please don't call me stupid. 2. At the point of my action, there was only 3 reverts by the other user in the last 24 hours. There are now 4, so I am blocking him as well. Please see WP:AN3. smoddy 15:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phone sex

There is a current edit war going on in the Phone sex topic. What is happening is that some persons have tried to advertise their personal phone sex pages and also take down historical information about phone sex operations in the 80s and early 90s which did not cater to the child and animal sex calls that the "taboo" services or persons are trying to promote on the phone sex page. They won't take it to the discussion to debate, they just keep editing with false information. I work in this business for 20 years and there are many of us who will NOT take calls from customers who want to talk about children and animals for ETHICAL reasons. They will not allow us to be represented on the page or report the facts that this wasn't even allowed 15-20 years ago in this business. They are sufficiently represented on the page, but do not allow OUR perspective to be represented nor are they reporting history accurately. The FCC did not control 900 lines until recently and have NEVER controlled toll free lines or call centers.

June 12, 2005

Zanskar

There is an ongoing edit war here, started by User:Mr Tan; he has been insisting on "cleaning" the article, even though I and another user pointed out to him that there was no problem whatsoever, but in vain. He will and has not listened to reason, and he is once again bringing down the overall quality of the article, as he has done in previous similar edits. He has already done this multiple times before, leading to temporary page protection of the article, but he claimed it was "unjust" and still wanted to copyedit it. He refuses the idea of making a draft before ediing the article itself. He does not listen! Immediate protection may be needed. Any help with the said user will also be much appreciated. JM Bell ° 10:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caucasophobia

The user User:Mikkalai is trying to remove the following passage:

"In addition to individual bigotry, Caucasophobia is alleged to manifest itself as formalized prejudice and persecution, such as propiska laws (often likened to apartheid), and in extreme cases, official opposition to romantic and marital relationships between Slavs and ethnic Caucasians, particularly those involving Caucasian men and Slavic women. Compare with American miscegenation laws, which once forbade whites and blacks from marrying or producing children

In Russia the simular issue is present and institutionalized in the statements of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and Russian “Movement against illegal immigration” (Russian language site). One may argue if those political movements are reflecting the opinion of majority of Russians or not, and if their political course is significant enough; but even if the followers of segregation are not the majority in contemporary Russia, the tendency is clearly present"

end of quote

Explanation: it seems an "anti-Russian propaganda"(pls. see discussion at the this article's entry on the Votes for Deletion page) and "falsehood and guesswork" to him. The author of the article has already presented a credible link for Russian language sources, political movements and parties who made a claim for sexual and matrimonial segregation between Russians and Caucasian their official policy. By destroying the links the user is destroying the credibly of the article as well

Propiska existes in Russia for over 70 years. Matrimonial separation pushed by right-wingers, not "official opposition".

Same user had re-edited the media links destroying the necessary separation between pro- and anti- Caucasian publications without an explanation.

The separation is phrased in POV and incorrect way. mikka (t) 00:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph : "Caucasophobia is a relatively new phenomenon and is believed by some to be the product of the FSB (Russian secret police) and President Putin's alleged efforts to use propaganda to justify Russian actions in Chechnya -- actions believed by many Caucasians to be genocidal."

end of quote

Is deleted by the same user with a following explanation: "false and guesswork: it is not new, and it is not KGB...er... FSB long arm" Which leaves his motive for editing absolutely unclear.

User:Jumber 11:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My motive is very clear, state in edit's comment: all removed statements are either false or author's guesswork. There were other edit comments, for each removed paragraph. the proper place for discussion is at Talk:Caucasophobia, not here. mikka (t) 00:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 13, 2005

Aesthetic Realism

An unregistered editor has made large deletions and other edits and is repeatedly reverting to that version. He or she refuses to come to the talk page, and has access to many IPs. Page protection might keep other editors from violating the 3RR rule, and may bring the anon to the talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

protected This link is Broken 04:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feces

This page has been protected before. Since it has been unprotected User:Eyeon, anonymous editors, and probable sockpuppets have again started to add back a photo of human feces into the article even though there is no clear consensus in the survey on the Talk page. It's better to protect this page, rather than continue the revert war. BlankVerse ∅ 08:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Queen of Canada

Queen of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's no history of persistent vandalism on this page (The page has 6 edits in total.), it's not a featured article, there's no edit war being cooled off here, and there's no explanation for protection on the talk page (which was last edited in 2003). There appears to be no reason for this page to be protected. Uncle G 13:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

- Looking at the posts on June 6 there seems to have been a rather sloppy attempt to move Monarchy in Canada to Queen of Canada via a cut and paste job. If you look at the talk pages of the people involved it seems this attempt was repeated despite a warning. AndyL 02:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Looking at the actual edit history of the article (6 edits) indicates that it wasn't repeated. There's 1 copy&paste and 1 reversion. There isn't even a mention on Talk:Monarchy in Canada of protecting the page, either. I still see no reason for this page to be protected. Uncle G 08:47, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Tsushima Straits

Rather than get into a revert war, I left this article unchanged and present here the talk record. I also added to the lengthy RfC on Mr Tan, which is why I think this is an appropriate posting - the talk record shows that he will not budge and wants to maintain Control despite good reasons and reasonable requests to let the matter lie pending another map. Note here that he removed the map I inserted there circa the beginning of the month - which I only caught last evening by accident. I want the article reverted to have the map, then protected pending further Rfc discussion, etc. Here are quick links My talk (Article 11) and His Talk (Article 85). Since reverting it myself would probably just escallate the situation, I left that for another third party, as somehow we in the Wiki-community have to get through to this hardcase. The matter itself is nearly trivial, but the failure of respect for anothers pov, is a matter of principle where the line needs drawn. I add for your attention, the suspicion by Admin user:JBell that this user was previously banned (On Tans talk and the rFC, IIRC) in part at least, for his intransingence and unwillingness to compromise. (this has cost a lot of others, and now myself (a lot of) time I could have been researching or writing.) Given a new computer, or a new firewall or router, etc. disguises this sort of double-life, the suspicion is credulous to me, and so I'm pushing back for the greater good. Fabartus 16:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

The reason for this should be obvious given the fact that a verdict has been given in his trial today... and the vandalism to the articles that has followed. --Chanting Fox 22:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 14, 2005

Islamofascism

Anon-ip-revert-o-rama. Redirect, no redirect, redirect, no direct, re... --Mrfixter 01:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay village

Random neighborhoors are being added to the list constantly. References should be required.

User:Jiang

It appears that some unscrupulous person (or people) keep(s) labeling this user as "Communist" in offensive manners on his very user page. --68.194.108.16 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Reversion war b/w User:Triggy and User:Vorash, request temporary protection to cool down Caphis 19:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of Canada

User:AndyL instigated a consideration for deletion, and then proceeded to heavily edit the article, removing large chunks of text, and thereby influencing the opinions of 'voters' who were making judgements on the validity of the page. It has been reverted to it's original format, but should be protected from major editing until discussion about its relevence is complete. (June 14, 2005)

I think you should wait for evidence of an edit war before asking for protection.AndyL 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've already dragged me into too many edit wars, Mr. Lehrer -- I'm not going to go down that route with you again. I believe you should respect the policies of Wikipedia and wait for the 5 day lag time to expire before deleting large sections of the article. Those policies, by the way, also state that the person who instigates the consideration for deletion should not be the one to delete the article -- as you have been doing, section by section, since the day you began the discussion. Thus, the article needs protection -- mostly from you. gbambino

You're misreading wikipedia policies and misunderstanding what we mean by "delete". Moving parts of the article to other article is not "deleting" the article and the fact that you have not reverted those insertions suggests you agree those paragraphs belong where they've been put in Monarchy in Canada and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

BTW, It's also considered improper to call people by what you purport to be their "real" names unelss they use their real name as their userid.AndyL 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No misunderstanding, but no doubt that your moving of the passages influenced opinions on the article. Don't assume my approval, as there is none. My lack of revision was due to the fact that I was blocked for 24hrs after being careless in another revert war started by none other than you. My argument for protection until the 5 day lag time is up stands, though the end of that time is quickly approaching anyway. gbambino

"My lack of revision was due to the fact that I was blocked for 24hrs" And how much time has passed since that block expired?AndyL 00:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 15, 2005

Feces

Request unprotect. User:SlimVirgin locked Feces and will only unlock the page for people she calls 'regular editors', meaning, editors who share her minority position. See her comments on talk:Feces. Eyeon 01:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Eyeon has been creating nonsense articles, inserting images intended to cause trouble at Feces and Penis removal, editing with sockpuppets and anon IP addresses, serial reverting, and has been blocked for violating 3RR three times within eight days. Feces is protected against any further trouble from him. I've made it clear to the other regular editors that if any of them want to edit the page, I'll unprotect it, but not at the request of Eyeon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

To add to what SlimVirgin ^(talk) said, User:Eyeon is in the habit of creating sockpuppet accounts, so please do not unprotect this page at the request of any user who has been created after June 13. Also, please do not unprotect the page at User:Eyeon's request; this account is a troll account created to stir up trouble here at Wikipedia. Samboy 01:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Gone from being a revert war, to being a slo-mo revert war between admins. Current version as editted by the protecting admin, creating a clear conflict of interest. Contents are highly problematic, from a policy point of view. Needs a better resolution than this. Alai 05:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect AIPAC

Lock by User:Jayjg against infrequent vandal. Timing seems rather convenient, as new info re AIPAC is QUITE pertinent just about now (spy scandal, etc). IMHO, no reason to continue the lock.

Unprotected. --cesarb 00:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

I would like to request a lock on this page due to the immense amount of reverts going on from members of this organization, who want this article to be written in a way favorable to their religion and have expressed a lack of regard for the Wikipedia rules regarding religion and the NPOV. While other users have tried to intervene, Emico and gcessor, both Iglesia ni Cristo members, consistently revert the page and make unreasonable demands regarding its editing. If not a lock, then I beg for the sysops to please give their input as to stop the complete fiasco which is occurring here.--Onlytofind 09:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monarchist League of Canada

User:gbambino, a member of the MLC, is POV pushing and insists on inserting assertion as fact.AndyL 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd, coming from a member of the Citizens for a Candian Republic who is pushing his POV without even sufficient arguments to back it up. I'm sure administrators considering a block on this page would like to read through the related discussion at: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada (gbambino)

Actually, I'm not a member of CCR. Are you a member of the MLC? AndyL 18:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter? Alas, you seem to think you know already. gbambino

You brought up the topic of affiliation (on another page), I didn't. And then you misidentified my affiliation based on rumour and conjecture. If you don't think affiliation is material, why did you bring it up? (hyocritically, may I add). AndyL 20:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

Has suffered from repeated vandalism, and should be placed under protection for 24 to 48 hours. Denelson83 21:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 16, 2005

Hong Kong Police

Lee Hunter has insisted on whitewashing the history of human right abuse by Hong Kong Police by deleting the related materials, which are being back up by links to well-documented NGO website. (Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor)

Iglesia ni Cristo

Please protect version on 20:48, 15 Jun 2005 from vandalism attack. a johnny come lately is going around vote results and disturbing peace. --Emico 03:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico has been blocked for violating the three-revert rule. --Michael Snow 04:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Book of Kells

Please protect. It is currently on the main page and has been vandalized numerous times.

--ZekeMacNeil 21:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~Done This link is Broken 22:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)~~ Unprotected, I didn't realize that this is the main page article (which we don't protect). This link is Broken 22:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

This article has received a lot of cruft by Argyrosargyrou and his sockpuppets. Other articles where he has spewed his POV have already been protected, this article is in dire need of reversion to the non-Argyrosargyrou version and protection. Aecis 23:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 17, 2005

Suicide Bombing

Revert war has arisen on this page between at least five editors against User: Enviroknot and at least four of his anon IP sockpuppets. Please revert to last version by Irishpunktom or myself, which had achieved consensus on talk page after much discussion with Jayjg, Yuber et al. Thanks illWill 00:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Rape of Nanking (book) and Image:Baoshan1937-Asahi-01.jpg

Sterile edit war with POV-pushing anon (more than one IP, but probably one person). Mark ¹ 04:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both protected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:GFDL-self

I have just brought this template up to what I believe is a Wikipedia standard, and consequently, I would like it to be placed under semi-permanent protection. Denelson83 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it needs protecting? If there is no reason why, it should not be protected just to keep it constant. That is very un-wiki. What is it you want to protect against? smoddy 22:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Efraín Ríos Montt and Fidel Castro

Belligerent RV edits and aversion to discussion by 172. J. Parker Stone 23:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 18, 2005

Phuket Province

I have noticed some vague informations provided by a German user, User:Ahoerstemeier, about the information of my town-Phuket. As the one who is keen about Thai and Asian history, I would like to keep this page protected from re-edit, as it could be possible to be vandalized again. And I am also bored with this kind of stubborn thing, which costs me a lot of time. Please keep WiKi and this article be neutral until an expert or cited article can be provided...22:40, 18 June 2005 (UTC).[reply]

June 19, 2005

Noam Chomsky

Users unwilling to compromise. J. Parker Stone 00:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reiterate. This page is an absolute mess. J. Parker Stone 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin and History of the United States (1988-present)

Aggressive RVing by 172. J. Parker Stone 01:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El Salvador

Again, 172. J. Parker Stone 01:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Aggressive RVing" by Trey Stone. El_C 07:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you haven't bothered to respond on Talk. J. Parker Stone 07:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bothered responding to what? You made an edit on 01:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) — I last edited the article on 21:06, 18 Jun 2005. I will respond to it monetarily, but I will say that I do not appreciate being insulted as a revert warrior, Mister Trey Stone. An Arbitrator has never blocked me indefintiely for being a "vandal and a troll." In fact, the only person to have blocked me has been me. El_C 08:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i have addressed this blocking matter before -- it was based on edits that were partially justified given 172's personal attacks. please do not distort it as you just have done. J. Parker Stone 08:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have not addressed it to my satisfaction, and your personal attacks were not justified at the time, as they are not justified now with your mischaracterization of myself as rv warrior — whereas I believe our edit histories would easily reveal the reverse. I argue that it is you who are distorting matters, grossly. This goes beyond the scope of WP:RFPP, I have responded to your comment on the article's talk page, citing the UN Truth Commission on Salvadoran Death Squads. El_C 08:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What "personal attacks" would you be referring to? J. Parker Stone 08:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This I don't give two shits one from five days ago, for example. El_C 09:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cussing is not the same as personal attacks. J. Parker Stone 20:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

This page is frozen because one person went on edit rampage without any consensus at all or attempt at consesnsus. It is now frozen with all of his/her edits in place - how convenient for him/her. The guilty party has apologized (look at the discussion page toward the bottom) for beginning the edit war - and it seems likely that the issue can be resolved. Please unlock so the page can be edited. 214.13.4.151 17:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. silsor 18:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

June 20, 2005

Roaring Twenties

Title protect. SPUI keeps making attempts to move this page against clear consensus. [[User:Bastique|{{unicode|ℬ}}astique]]{{unicode|▼}}[[User talk:Bastique|'''talk''']] 03:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

This article is vandalised over and over again, every few minutes. And because the list is already complete, there's hardly ever any non-vandalism edits done on it (other than reverts). -- LGagnon 20:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Protected. silsor 05:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

June 21, 2005

Harvard University

RGluckman has consistently vandalized this page by removing the Harvard crest. Several other users have pleaded with him to stop but he continues and tosses out vague legal threats. --ElKevbo 00:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RGluckman has been blocked for 24 hours. Protection is not necessary at this time. If after 00:43 22 Jun 2005 RGluckman has continued his vandalism spree, then perhaps protection is in order; however given he is the only user who seems to be interested in removing this image, probably blocking him will be sufficient to protect the page. See Talk:Harvard University. Nohat 00:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Despite adding the following new evidence, the article is being valdalised and these contributions are being deleted by someone with this IP: 24.90.102.133:

1. external sources:

2. These published books:

History of the Servian People 1848 Leipzig, Germany Count Leopold Ranke

Paul Rovinski Russian emmisary and historian quoted from: "Glas Crnogorca" 1899

L. Defenbah "Zeine Familie War Slavishen Ursprungs" Brlin, Germany 1895

Teodoro Spanduci 16th century Italian quoted by: P. Rovinski see: above source for Mr. Rovinski

3. These quotes by academics:

Count Leopold Ranke: "In Albania, a prince of Serb origin, George Kastriotovoitch Skenderbeg, fought the Turks with great valour as the prince of Albania".

Paul Rovinski: "...in the time of national awakening for the Albanians - Skenderbeg was as much of a Serb as he was an Albanian...in him there was much Serb blood. His mother Vojislava was a Serb princess and the names of most of Skenderbeg's sisters were Serb...Mara, Jela, Angelina, Valica and his brothers were: Stanisa, Konstantin. Skenderbeg's sister Mara was married to Stefan Crnojevic, lord of Zeta, who with the Zetans helped Skenderbeg for 24 years in the wars against the Turks. According to the Catholic priest of Shkodra Marin Barleci, the Turks unearhed Skenderbeg's remains and distributed them amongst themsleves 'as amulets".

L. Diefenbach: "Skenderbeg's family was of Serb descent" and married to Danica daughter of Vojvoda Golem. (golem is an old Slav word, meaning "great".)

Teodoro Spanduci: "Skenderbeg, a personally brave man was of Serb descent and was so useful, that he was respected by the Albanians, as well. He was the son of Ivan Kastrioti. His mother was Vojislava, daughter of the Prince of Polog."

Fatos Lubonja: "I told of how the Albanians have forgotten that Skenderbeg was a Slav. I was attacked by Ismail Kadare." * 1.

Kaplan Resulli: "Lets mention, as well, at this opportune time only Georgi Kastriot Skenderbeg, of an undeniable Slavic ancestry..."* 1.

The contributions to the article are being constantly deleted because of political motives. Please have this paged secured against politically-minded vandalism and a lack of sincerity to historical record.

American Idiot

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

Despite the better quality picture shown here, Mike Garcia is out again to replace anything "not his" with "his." This was his comment:

Mike Garcia: reverting somebody who removed my own image of the album

Mike Garcia: infobox - restoring my own image, get your own image, Pmam21

Despite the fact that his image is of a lower quality, he keeps putting it in the American Idiot article. I have tried to resolve this on the talk page, he never replied. Plus, he is doing similar activities elsewhere. I think American Idiot should be protected for this image replacing war, and/or something should be done to Mike Garcia. Please compare the first image and the second image. Second one is obviously of better quality. -- pmam21^talk_articles 17:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree that pmam21's version of the image is clearly better, but it's hardly a big deal.Mike Garcia's image is low resolution, which doesn't matter when reduced to a thumbnail, and the red portions look a little grainy due, I think, to JPEG overcompression. But in any case I don't think this is a case for page protection. Try a Request for Comment, and try conducting a straw poll on the topic in Talk:American Idiot. If it turns out that there is an obvious consensus in favor of your image he'll probably stop reverting. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know Mike Garcia very well if you think he'll ever follow consensus on anything and stop reverting... *Dan* 12:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I don't know him so I'm assuming good faith. If a user were to continue to revert against a clear consensus there would be other measures that could be taken. I've taken the liberty of setting up the straw poll I suggested. I know not what course other sysops may take but I want to see consensus on the image choice before I take any action. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replicator (Star Trek)

editor Redux dismisses reference to canon events as fan speculation and inference, defends his actions with circular reasoning, and tries to invoke revert wars; request made at 4pm on June 21

Refer to the 3RR violation report I posted. There I talk about what actually was happening in the article. I was under the impression that we were talking things out until the anon at the IP 69.177.94.86 reverted the article again (violating the 3RR) without any explanation and, as it turns out, made this misguided request for page protection. My theory is that he didn't like that I indicated (politelly, incidentally) that what he was describing as "canon events" were actually speculation described as fact. Yet I proposed a compromise, which he didn't even bother to consider. Apparently, he wants the page protected so that he can get his way. Regards, Redux 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a simple disagreement that has gotten out of hand. I'm backing off not because I'm wrong but just because I don't want this to escalate further. Redux is correct to point out that my request for protection is misguided; I did not correctly understand how to follow procedure regarding edit conflicts. I would like to "officially" withdraw my request, but I don't want to do so by simply deleting this whole request from the page, since now I'm concerned that that would also be a violation of policy somehow. In response to the specifics of Redux's complaints, I did not intend to slander him and I don't see where this accusation comes from, although I can understand he's getting quite frustrated with me, since we both see the other as using circular reasoning. I most definitely did NOT violate the three revert rule; I reverted only once. My other edits were not attempts at "reverts in disguise" but honest attempts to edit the entry to what I thought was increasingly compromising wording. Redux is not satisfied because I did not accept HIS definition of compromise, but I believe we are both after the same thing, just getting on each other's nerves in the process. Please withdraw my request for page protection. In the future, if somebody objects to any edits I make, I will refrain from reverting or further editing to avoid more conflicts.

June 22, 2005

Thailand

The user and also admins User:Everyking as well as User:Markalexander100, might not know about Thailand (Siam) history that much. They've changed the page to the older version which is considered vandalized (made by somebody). The sensitive case is that Thailand was the (informal) British colony, which it actually never was, and we cannot accept that. And the truth is that we also used to own the areas around which was later became the new territoties under the British Empire by an unfiar threats (in many historians' opinions). I think this page should not be changed by anybody anymore unless he/she knows what is behind the true story and understand OUR history well. 09:12, 22 June 2005 (UTC) by 84.191.162.226.[reply]

~~PS1: I hate idiots! PS2: Even though in the discussion page, there are many misunderstanding of some.~~

It's hard to know where to begin with this one. Obviously a user not liking a page is not a reason for protection; he has made no attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page. Mark ¹ 07:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is stupid argument since I've already posted something (several crucial points to defense- pls see Thailand's discussion page), so it is clear and one should not get confused to understand if he or she knows what is actully "vandalized". by 84.191.162.226, 18:33, 22 June 2005 (UTC).

User:Rovoam vandalism

History of Turkey, Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Garry Kasparov, Azerbaijan, Caucasus, and Template:Europe have been vandalised repeatedly by anon IP addresses over the last few days. All changes were the same, and all perpetrated by User:Rovoam (see his talk page for a description). -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

Ongoing edit/revert war concerning page name (Islands or Island?) and removal of bilingual infobox of Tsushima Islands' name in Korean and Japanese. Some admins had expressed their concern and were willing to protect the page, but were eventually deterred. In my opinion, this page should be protected until a consensus has been reached both with the article name and the infobox. This has been going on for a couple of weeks now; perhaps now would be a good time for protection.... JM Bell ° 21:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Christina Aguilera

IP 216.76.218.217 and similar IP addresses have been persistantly blanking out the majority of the Christina Aguilera talk page. Removing the Peer Review archive template, and most of the talk page's discussion. the IP address has been warned, and reported to WP:VIP, but the blanking hasn't stopped. I cannot revert the page anymore due to WP:3RR, so I request this page be locked for the time being. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 23:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting unexplained page blanks on talk pages is allowed under the 3RR. Blanking seems to have stopped for now. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The blanking has continued, he has erased most of the recent talk, including mgm's comments about the issue, and two users have already complained about it. The vandal has once again used a different IP address, and that IP has been also reported to WP:VIP. Please lock this page asap! --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 01:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

There's no sense in protecting a talk page. You've got to realize, even if the page was blanked for a long time, the damage would be very minimal, because it's just a talk page. Anybody who was aware of an ongoing discussion would see what had happened and revert the vandal. Anybody who isn't aware of it isn't missing all that much. Why don't we try archiving some of the old talk, and see if that appeases the vandal? Everyking 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 23, 2005

Feces

Please protect the page against vandalism. I sectioned the article, not changing the content at all, but a flock of vandals (or sockpuppets) keep reverting my work. mikka (t) 00:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't find mikka's sectioning edit. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Corporate media and Free Speech Movement

Please. thank you J. Parker Stone 04:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reason why you are requesting protection? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

John Negroponte

Continued unjustified POV RV. J. Parker Stone 04:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf (history · watch)

Would it be possible to protect this disambiguation page long-term? Of the 61 edits since the page was created, all but six have been vandalism, highly-POV rants about the use of "Arabian Gulf" as a name for the Persian Gulf, or reversion of same. --Carnildo 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. I don't know whether we're meant to put a protection tag on a disambiguation page, so I didn't, but if that was the wrong thing to do, let me know and I'll add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

John Byrne

Edit war getting out of control, especially between two people. Also getting heated again--was good for a little while. *Sigh*

I think there is no need to protect the page. The discussion and editing is ongoing. The protection didn't help the last time, it will not help now. --80.95.138.62 19:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 24, 2005

Iris Chang

Long-running edit war with POV-pusher and his "anonymous friends"; dysfunctional talk page. In dire need of protection. Mark ¹ 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please. Mark ¹ 07:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, take a look at this, as of right now he and his anonymous cohorts have reverted the article 10 times, we can't keep watch all the time. Need protection! -Hmib 08:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected until disputes are ressolved on the talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current

Cantus insists on "his" version of the template, reverting my edits without providing any reasoning for it. I have requested he give reasoning twice on his talk page, and his most recent revert reason was "a wee bit larger image", where he reverted back to his version (and the image stayed exactly the same size). I reverted his as a bad faith edit, but I expect he will keep on "slow reverting" back to his version if anyone makes any kind of edit. Please protect to prevent him from doing this reversion with false edit summaries and failure to engage in discussion. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cantus is now reverting any changes as "vandalism". Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of warez groups

This page is being used in a flame war between what seems to be competing warez groups. Appears to be a fight between two groups or individuals with some legitimate users mixed in. Non-vandalized reverts are consistantly defaced by user Ted Bunndy and anon posters, along with user Gooba. Vandalism includes racist, anti-gay, and other offensive material. Gross point of view postings. A clean version can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_warez_groups&oldid=15722817 but rv'ing to it just causes the trolls to re-vandalize.

Nikola Tesla

This page seems to be undergoing an edit war between William M. Connolley and 204.56.7.1. Discussion can be found at Talk:Nikola_Tesla.

Sean Kennedy

Edit/revert war beginning. vote for deletion brought no consensus, and user Goferwiki has attempted to delete an overwhelming majority of the entry.

June 25, 2005

User:Rovoam

I request protection of this entry, which is aimed at providing info for other Wikipedians on well-known banned vandal Rovoam. A sockpuppet of another vandal (Deli-Eshek, aka banned Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova is trying to insert his spurious and irrelevant message to this entry. Moreover, I would like to request temporary protection of my user talkpage and userpage, since my same vandal acting also under name "Popgoestheweasle" is lkoading my talkpage with spurious and slandering messages. p.s. additional info on Deli-Eshek is available here --Tabib 11:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Page has been edited various times. First false information regarding future album title and now correct information has been edited so it doesnt make sense, for example '(which won a Grammy in 3999)' 'With the release of their 5th studio album in 1873, Blood Salt Sex Magik,' . Have repaired the page various times but it has only been vandalised more.

June 26, 2005

Paperback Writer

To preempt a revert war. Article was revamped and an edit was made on dubious grounds resulting in a less accurate and somewhat ungrammatical new information box. Accusations of vandalism towards first revert. Discussion page opened.

Tarkan

To preempt a revert war caused by fan rivalry. Edits are constantly made by a Mustafa Sandal fanatic vandalising this article with derogatory remarks about the singers sexuality.

Fidel Castro

Please unprotect, nobody requested the protection. One person got overzealous,

and violated 3RR, but one incident should not prevent work on the page.--Silverback 12:45, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

June 27, 2005

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Anonymous user signing as User:Mike Garcia (IP shows in history, but name is written) and using insults [53] [54] [55] [56] in reverting.

Basically, wikipedia uses years a movie was released to sort them by year. See Category:1989 films (same reason we put 2005 events on 2005) yet this user is using the date on the DVD cover as evidence. Using insults and reverting isn't civilized discourse and I forsee this continuing until the insulter decides to calm down. Cburnett 00:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree on this. The page should probably be protected (I just did a revert so I can't protect). Mike has a mentor whom I will contact. I think he is an asperger or something and is editing in good faith, and makes many good contributions, but is not well equipped to deal with content disputes of this kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Objection! I was only trying to change it to the correct year (1988) to prove it. But, again, I really don't care what any website says about how old the movie is. Once again for Cburnett, I am so sorry for those threats and insults. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Garcia has been getting into a long succession of edit wars like this, and refuses to listen to anybody else; he repeatedly gets vulgar and offensive when faced with disagreement. He is currently on 24-hour ban due to 3RR violations, which is why he's using anonymous IPs. *Dan* 01:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that he's just reverted the page again (I assume it's him, same IP). Keanu Reeves was just reverted and "...was NOT released in 1988, dumb ass..." as part of the summary. Mike is refused to be civil. Cburnett 01:43, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree on this. Page protection is not the way to go on this: Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. I don't see that applies here? A mini revert-war and refusal of multiple parties to back down better suit a dispute template than protection. In the past I've edited IMDB.com pages, liaised with agents/publicists etc., and had edits approved. If I may be blunt, blindly citing websites and vague data like release-date (cinematic? special screenings? DVD/Video? Europe? US? Worldwide?) are not evidence until it's been confirmed exactly what they're each evidence of. Whitehorse1 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

June 28, 2005

LEGO

Please temporarily protect LEGO to make a really persistent vandal go away. — JIP | Talk 28 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Done. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

June 29, 2005

Democratic Progressive Party, Kuomingtang

Please protect these two pages, Democratic Progressive Party & Kuomingtang, to stop vandalism. bobbybuilder 00:54, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the vandal is bobbybuilder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has made multiple 3RR edits to myself, Wilfried Derksen, and Roadrunner.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)
GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used POV to edit these two pages, ignored the "talk" page discussion, and yet still accused other people for not providing comments. Wilfried Derksen showed he has no current information on these issues, and GrandCru vandalised Roadrunner's work as well. Please check the history of GrandCru to know how biased and factitious his contributions are. -- bobbybuilder 02:54, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith as a Prophet

Please protect to allow an edit war to cool down. User Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on major deletions because content does not agree with his POV. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)

GabrielSimon refuses to discuss on the talk page, and I've tried to engage him diplomatically. He won't accept other's POV and is intent on silencing one side of the story. Let's freeze the page. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Dynamic theory of gravity

Seems to be in state of revert war, anonymous Tesla conspiracy-theorist vs. William M. Connolley. --Wikimol 29 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

June 30, 2005

IGN

Being constantly vandalised by countless anon IPs. the wub "?/!" 30 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure

Unprotect this article. There's no opposition (nor support to tell the truth nor any discussion now) to unprotecting. Cburnett June 30, 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Kazaa

Being constantly vandalized by Haham hanuka, and constantly reverted by seven other users. Vandalism includes advertising, blanking of paragraphs, deleting sources, and not maintaining a NPOV. Update: 212.122.214.1 keeps adding inaccurate facts and links to scamware, but won't respond to a request for arbitration. --165.247.31.28 June 30, 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Scanderbeg

User:70.48.250.150 is aggressively changing the page based on his views on the character. He fails to properly debate his sources and fails to recognise mine tagging me with the title "propagandist". On top of this he makes the article very bulky with his changes and only portrayes his view. On top of this, he is contantly repeating himself on the discussion page and filling it up with the same info.

Tpilkati 30 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Act

Both are in a stage of modification war. One user persists in dissing nuclear and also promoting renewables, usually (but not always) in a POV fashion. Extensive advice has been given to the user by another user who came in under RfC. Congress is debating the Energy Bill right now, and that bill contains many provisions for nuclear power including extension of the Price-Anderson Act - a cooling-off period until that bill is signed would be appreciated. Simesa 30 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

The editing on these two pages is so hyperactive that it is hard to even read all the changes. Therefore I support a cooling off period. pstudier 2005 June 30 23:56 (UTC)

The bill before Congress in question may never be enacted, so I'm not sure I'd support such a long page block. But a temp block probably would be useful for encouraging consensusbuilding on the talk pages instead of edit warring. Thanks for your consideration, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm the editor who responded to the RfC (although, I've only been involved in the Price-Anderson article). · Katefan0^(scribble) July 1, 2005 00:08 (UTC)

The editer calling for a cool-off in order to affect politics is an admitted paid member of the nuclear industry and as such is not financially neutral, and wikipedia should resist efforts by corporate mouthpieces to censor the contributions of its critics. I oppose the cooling off period as edits are being properly sourced, and both articles have increased the amount of independantly verifiable information. Moreover, in spite of the tension, the line of compromise has shifted as facts and evidence are brought to light. The energy and attention - perhaps influenced by the fact that the issue is in the public eye has improved the quality of the Wikipedia - spawned at least one article (Price Anderson) and the 2 Categories: Subsidies and Energy Categories. In the interests of fairness, I have no financial support from any energy industry, but do engage in renewable energy innovation. www.windwavesandsun.com

finally, the non-moving party should be given the right to set the state of the page during the cooling off period - otherwise cooling off is really just POV endorsement by the wikiadmins.

Benjamin Gatti 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

As my user profile states, "former" - I have not been employed in the nuclear or power industries for 11 years now. Simesa 1 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)

Also, I am not retired. I cannot now work in the nuclear or power industries because I was a "whistleblower". Simesa 1 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)

As of today, the edit wars continue unabated. Simesa 2 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Yes, PLEASE put this page in for protection. In a little more than week, this has spurred 40 headings on the talk page and so many edits that it's hard to follow. We need a cooling off period. I've been working on this for just a day and I'm already exhausted. --Woohookitty 3 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

Page protection is being requested so that one wikipedian can assert original research suggesting that a nuclear accident like chernobyl in the US would have less impact than chernobyl - in spite of cited arguments to the contrary - mostly that population density would result in heigher concentratins of affected persons. Rather than Page Protection - the NPOV standard of no original research should be enforced. This complaint should be arbitrated. NPOV and TotallyDisputed flags have not been suffecient to remove the unsupported assertion.

Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request for Arbitration. The Original Research has been pulled with consensus, and unveryfiable assertions have been pulled as well. The article is not longer in violation of POV by my book Benjamin Gatti 3 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

The "Original Research" is back and properly cited with four citations. It alone was not the reason for requesting protection - incessant POV edits are the main reason. The Request for Protection is NOT withdrawn. Simesa 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

The pages have been protected, hopeful this will allow the parties time to calm down and resolve the disputes in the talk pages while adhering to npov, no original research, and citing sources policies. El_C 3 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

July 1, 2005

Lon Nol

Davenbelle refuses to discuss RVs on Talk and is operating in a similar way (and using similar edits) as Ruy Lopez was on Khmer Rouge, where the other editors were almost unanimously against him. J. Parker Stone 1 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

Don't Tread on Me

The new album by 311 has been vandalized about 2 or 3 times today by various anonymous users. -- Mike Garcia | talk 1 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

I also left a message about this on the talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 1 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

Image:Canada flag large.png

This image page needs to be protected. A user (Lolwtf) replaced the image of the Canadian flag with an explicit picture of a penis covered in mud. This cannot happen again -ever. The vandalism was on the page for 6 minutes according to the history page, this is unacceptable. --Mb1000 1 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

July 2, 2005

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

This page needs protection because a user (12.144.5.2) keeps changing the credits that appear at the end of the movie, adding inaccurate information about the Cast. Copperchair 2 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

This page needs to be protected. It should be a proper biography of Sensei Kim and a link to his site. Instead it is a bunch of internet commandoes who have made a career out of bashing and trying to discredit him. This page, as posted by Aesopian, is both slander and libel and will not be allowed to continue.

Actually, I am going to request that the earlier version be protected, if reversions continue. To remove entire articles and info on their talk pages wholesale is against Wikipedia policy. Fire Star 2 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

No need for protection for now; discussion has shifted to talk. --cesarb 2 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

More lies. I do not wish to engage in a flame war with you trolls who have published nothing except gossip about me from Bullshido. No one has interviewed ME for this suppposedly unbiased article. I demand a proper biography and a link to my site or that the entry be removed altogether. So far I have appealed to five administrators, NONE of whom have the courtesy to speak to me privately about this matter. So, just keep lying to yourself and others, boys! DE-NILE is more than just a river in Egypt, LOL

Ashida Kim

Nobody is granted the right under Wikipedia rules to have a "proper biography" (by their own self-proclaimed standards) or to demand an entry be removed. Biographical entries in this site are not vanity pages for the benefit of the biographee, but pages about notable individuals giving an overview about them from a NPOV (neutral point of view), including both favorable and unfavorable facts and viewpoints. *Dan* July 3, 2005 13:01 (UTC)

July 3, 2005

Lea Rosh

User:203.146.247.18 and User:210.86.142.77 (probably identical) are trying to spread some antisemitic misinformatioin about an alleged Musical There's No Business Like Shoah Business, for which there is no proof to be found. The corresponding article Lea Rosh in the German wikipedia is now protected due to the massive edit war caused by this, cf. Diskussion:Lea Rosh. But still, the user is trying to play the game here in the English wikipedia. --85.180.145.47 3 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

Hypnotize

Has been vandalized twice by an anonymous user (66.36.148.190) removing some information ([57]). -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. *Dan* July 3, 2005 13:58 (UTC)

The user wants me to give him/her a source about that information in red ([58]). He/she just keeps removing it as well since I kept reverting him/her three times. The user needs to be banned for this mess. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Possibly Dan. I agree with your sentiment vandalism is not an accurate description of the activity. I'm not sure this is a content dispute though? A cursory glance at the article history page finds the continuous repetition of the same word by the anonymous editor; including in response to pleas made to the anon. editor to cease summarily reverting article. Particularly when those summaries are read in parallel with the comment from the anonymous editor on the article Talk page it seems a deliberate attempt to bait Mike (by removing text and repeating edit summary exactly as before). It is possible the original anonymous edit was in good faith but given the clear (sucessful) baiting and trolling for a reaction, I doubt it. Whitehorse1 | September 1 2025 18:35 (UTC)

Then why don't you give a source? That seems like a fairly reasonable request, although the way that person is going about it with repetitive reverts isn't the most productive way to make the point. Both you and the anonymous editor have violated the 3RR. *Dan* July 3, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

It's not me who added the information on Hypnotize before the anonymous user user showed up today to remove it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the baiting for a reaction as an anon (possibly this same one, but using a different IP address) is now removing the Rate Your Music link on the Don't Believe the Truth album page, which is a link Mike has defended and replaced before. Cbing01 3 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)

Another defendable edit... it's indeed true that Rate Your Music is not a "professional review" site, which is the header under which the link has been placed. There's a case for showing the average rating on sites that let users rate things, like RYM, Epinions, and Amazon, but it should probably be under a separate category from professional reviews. *Dan* July 3, 2005 22:56 (UTC)