Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Random Editor (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 27 September 2007 (→‎{{la|Kent Hovind}}: Semi-Protect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

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

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

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


    Current requests for protection

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

    semi-protect Vandalism by several IPs. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - Three weeks. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect +expiry 2 days IP address registered to ministry founded by Hovind continually removes section on Youtube controversy, calling it "gossip" and "speculation" despite the fact it is well-sourced and even covered on Wikinews..NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - For 4 days. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Salt Along with Bobby Boulders. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected - International Society of Vandals - Alison ❤ 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already protected. - Bobby Boulders has already been done by someone else - Alison ❤ 22:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    full protection edit warring resumes. Yahel Guhan 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. please take it to the talk. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi protection +expiry 2 hours, Full protection: Vandalism, Vandalism.Tiptoety 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotect should be enough, we don't really need full, it's IP vandalism. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ❤ 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism originating from Bodybuilding.com.--Quartet 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - For three weeks. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism — again. Is long-term semi-protection allowed? If so, we might want to consider it for this article. —RuakhTALK 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected - Let's see if two weeks help. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit warring. Vryadly 20:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Protection has only just expired - no reason to reprotect prematurely. If edit warring does resume, please request protection again. WjBscribe 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Heavy vandalism from user accounts and one IP address. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked.. All 3 users blocked - likely to all be the same person. WjBscribe 21:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Heavy IP vandalism.Blueboy96 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. WjBscribe 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Heavy vandalism from Ip addresses in only 12 minutes. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. WjBscribe 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. User has placed a personal attack against another user on talk page. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Already protected due to unblock abuse. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Yamla. WjBscribe 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect (temporary). Daily linkspam/revert war originating from a single German ISP. It's always the same link, which is related to the article topic but is of no research value; it's advertising a commercial service and email harvesting site. The perpetrator is waging the same campaign on German Wikipedia as well. The user is given a warning each time their link is removed, but either ignores it or doesn't see it due to IP address changes. A brief period of semi-protection may discourage him or draw his attention to the matter on the Talk page. —mjb 19:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 3 days, Semi-protection: Vandalism, High amounts of IP vandalism over the past few days. Almost every edit over the past 48 hours has either been vandalism or a revert..MBK004 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +cascade, +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Recent vandalism.MilkTaco 19:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

    Semi-protection. User talk page was blanked by IP address. Page needs protection from further abuse. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined a single blanking of the talk page isn't enough to semi-protect the talk page. If they were posting personal attacks, vandalizing, or continually blanking, semi-protection would be justified. Acalamari 19:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, This page has been a daily target of vandalism by anonymous IP address editors. A quick glance at the page history shows almost 30 vandalisms in the last 24 hours..GoodDamon 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection: Edit warring continues on this article between normally registered users and one/several anonymous users - there have been four separate edits and reversions today (edit: make that five now, 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)). We continue to try and get the anonymous user(s) to contribute to our discussion but they refuse to co-operate. Atleast four people have contributed to the discussion, and feel that the link is valid - see Talk:Say No To 0870 for details. ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The edit war continues to rage - nine edits and reverts in one day. Please can we have some comment or protection regarding this ASAP. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined as this is a content dispute. Protection policy doesn't allow semi-protection of articles where it will have the effect of locking one side of a dispute. It really needs to be full protection (so it affects everyone equally) or no protection. WjBscribe 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection: Content dispute continues (the user is now removing the discussion link from the talk page!) ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected. WjBscribe 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protection: Edit warring continues on this article between normally registered users and one/several anonymous users - there have been four separate edits and reversions today (edit: make that five now, 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)). We continue to try and get the anonymous user(s) to contribute to our discussion but they refuse to co-operate. Atleast four people have contributed to the discussion, and feel that the link is valid - see Talk:Say No To 0870 for details. ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The edit war continues to rage - nine edits and reverts in one day. Please can we have some comment or protection regarding this ASAP. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined as this is a content dispute. Protection policy doesn't allow semi-protection of articles where it will have the effect of locking one side of a dispute. It really needs to be full protection (so it affects everyone equally) or no protection. WjBscribe 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection: Content dispute continues (the user is now removing the discussion link from the talk page!) ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protected. WjBscribe 21:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection: The edit warring has begun again, the page was just unprotected. While more people are attempting to discuss things, it has once again broken down. In the issue of disclosure I have just reverted before posting this, feel free to revert me then protect if needed to remove any appearance of attempting to "game the system" or "subvert process" --SevenOfDiamonds 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for one week. Second verse, same as the first. - Philippe | Talk 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection: Persistent vandalism coming from three different IPs in the last two weeks alone. Appears to be the same editor that resulted in the semi-protection of Transgeneration. - ZoeF 18:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - please continue to watchlist and revert. - Philippe | Talk 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection. FFL, the separated group from CFC, is editing the article to portray itself as the real CFC, disputing the rightful inheritance of CFC Global Mission Foundation, as well as the copyrighted name "Couples For Christ". Jedjuntereal 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for one week. - Philippe | Talk 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection Semi-protection: Vandalism, Nothing helpful coming from IPs on this page.The Evil Spartan 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - sorry - Alison ❤ 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection vandalism from different IPs. Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. - very little vandalism & main culprit now blocked - Alison ❤ 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. FFL, the separated group from CFC, is editing the article to portray itself as the real CFC, disputing the rightful inheritance of CFC Global Mission Foundation, as well as the copyrighted name "Couples For Christ". Jedjuntereal 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This appears to be a content dispute. Protection policy doesn't allow semi-protection of articles where it will have the effect of locking one side of a dispute. It really needs to be full protection (so it affects everyone equally) or no protection. WjBscribe 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, due to continued vandalism resulting from aftermath from Ahmadinejad's speech on Monday. Yavoh 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. I see a lot of edits by IPs and disagreements about content, but very little vandalism. I don't think protection is needed at this time and interest in the speech is likely to decline over the next few days. WjBscribe 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism.Johnny Au 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I spent some time recently reverting vandalism from an anon AOL IP, which was then blocked and page protected. IP was blocked. Today, within hours of a Bot protection removal, page is being vandalised from same IP block and in the same manner, exact same wording. He also blanked my user page; I can deal with that but I don't want to waste time reverting Theft every five minutes. User also tries to conceal vandalism be leaving an incorrect note : (Small spelling error in #Ghosts subsection)--Rodhullandemu 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Alison ❤ 17:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    unprotect There was really no vandalism on this page, except many unregistered users updated his stats every Sunday, very little vandalism that was quickly reverted, but it has stopped now and there is no vandalism for days now, and there are no open disputes on this page or any pending discussions on this page. --Skjbunny 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)SkjbunnySkjbunny 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

    Declined Was just protected a couple of days ago. Let's give it a few more days to settle down. Jmlk17 09:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This administrator institutes a one-year block on a tertiary-institution proxy, which is entirely inappropriate (and has been discussed before when other proxies have been unblocked), and then has his user talk page protected. How can users affected by this block discuss the block length if he has his page protected?

    I don't want the ban to be lifted, I want the time to be reduced. This is not good adminship.

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

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

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

    User talk:Punk Boi 8 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    At User talk:Punk Boi 8#Block Appeal, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#User:Punk Boi 8]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At User talk:Hkelkar#No Personal Attacks, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive155#Xenophobia]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At User talk:TareTone#Problematic edits, there's a link to an archived WP:ANI discussion - the current location of the discussion is: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive136#User:TareTone]]. I would like an admin to fix that - since it seems that the WP:ANI discussion is necessary to understand this section. Od Mishehu 23:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- Satori Son 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Need to revert a vandalism...

    Giggity Giggity GOO! 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, Heavy resent vandalism.Nate1481( t/c) 15:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Repeated additions asserting that "Alex Tironati" is an overachiever at least 10 times since January 2007. Most of the activity on this article is addition and removal of this claim. ETA. The additions are all from the one IP address. --Kateshortforbob 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked: by Riana (talk · contribs). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protect. Persistent vandalism in the form of unfounded and possibly libellous attacks on the charity in question. Crimperman 12:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected Navou banter 14:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User(s) blocked.. Revert-warring isn't the way to go (in fact, you should've warned him about it). 31 hours to Rocksuk, 12 hour to you. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Two variable IPs have been reverting each other for the skyline photo at the infobox, and it is getting frankly annoying. (Won't be easy to detect in the history) --Howard the Duck 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what you mean. The article has been Creation protected --DarkFalls talk 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I screwed up, I copied the template without changing it. :D --Howard the Duck 07:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Get them to discuss on the talkpage. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With anons, that's next to impossible... oh, well. --Howard the Duck 10:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, guess what? It happened again. If you don't call this disruptive, I don't what is. --Howard the Duck 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full Protection. Ongoing vandalism by political advocate, Peter Werner, of a researcher's bio page. If there is another option other than protection that would be great. But mediation has not worked.

    Fully protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 09:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for protecting this page until we can workout some kind of solution. Would it be possible to roll it back past Werner's last revision to this version which is the most simple and neutral version without all the contentious material in it. In other words, please roll back to version of 07:58, 27 September 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melissa_Farley&oldid=160650614 Thank you.--Axiomatica 10:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the version of 07:58, 27 September 2007 is only neutral in the opinion of Axiomatica – I dispute the neutrality of that version. If WP administrators want to go back to a truly neutral (if very limited) version, I suggest knocking the whole thing back to the lead (that is, the first two sentences) and the infobox. Iamcuriousblue 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the version is also neutral in the opinio of the person who wrote it. Please read the talk page near the "edit protected" box for a clear outline of the issue.--Axiomatica 12:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection My user and talk pages have been blanked a number of times in the previous week. Yorkshiresky 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected, all blanking is coming from IP's, so no need to full-protect. Expiry set for two weeks. Daniel 09:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection My user and talk pages have been blanked a number of times in the previous week. Yorkshiresky 09:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected, expiry set for two weeks. Daniel 09:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Yorkshiresky 09:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Article regularly vandalized by internet trolls and hoaxmongers.Benjamin P. Holder 06:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Neil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (full-protection). Daniel 09:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Currently semi-protected until Sept 29. Suggest date be extended until at least Nov 1 for semi-protect, due to recent news (Sept 24) about ad campaign to bring back show. This article has been hit by non-registered users in the past adding campaign sites and others with hate posts. This has happened as well with registered users. Msw1002 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done Added 10 more days onto protection. Jmlk17 09:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection until issues resolved. Slow-ish moving but continual {{Guideline}} vs. {{Essay}} designation tag editwarring between those who accept (as does clear WP-wide general consensus, for a very long time) that WP:NFT is one of AFD's most-relied-upon guidelines, and a small but loud faction who thinks it should not be a guideline because they disagree with something about its tone or wording (trivial matters for copyediting). The issue needs to be hashed out on the talk page probably by way of a WP:RFC until some people understand WP:CONSENSUS and how WP:CCC actually works a little more clearly. The present situation is untenable, as participants at AFD need to know that NFT is not suddenly unreliable or considered disputed because of a few people with minor issues to settle. Disclaimer: I am a party to this dispute (my stance will be clear from the above).— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - please take things to the talk page and try and build consensus and resolve the problem. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Filed an RFC on it, and hopefully will resolve the issue. The RFCbot hasn't added it to the list yet; I assume it runs hourly or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protect. Edit warring by dynamic IP adding NPOV link violating WP:RS--Strothra 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protect and/or block user; User:69.181.169.81 is making frivolous and disruptive requests. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The user is not disrupting RFPP, probably just confused about the protection process. Please have a word with the user before asking for a block. --DarkFalls talk 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. All three requests were for preemptive protection, and he had been told in his first request ("Beijing" below) that admins do not use preemptive protection. The John Wilkes Booth and Korea ones were added a hour and a half after the Beijing one was rejected. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and we cannot reasonably consider protecting core process/problem-report pages like WP:RFPP! Anon users have an entitlement to file grievances and report problems, too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection +expiry 2 weeks, Semi-protection: Vandalism, heightened..~Eliz81(C) 06:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full Protection North Korea's threats to use nuclear missles will make this page a target for vandalism. 69.181.169.81 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend blocking IP; this is the third straight frivolous request from this address. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. --DarkFalls talk 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect Page at high risk of vandalism because of what Booth did at Ford's Theatre. 69.181.169.81 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators do not do preemptive protections, and this request mnakes about as much sense as Chewie living amongst Ewoks. I also note this is the second time in the past few hours you've asked for preemptive semi-protection on an article. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 02:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. --DarkFalls talk 06:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=160793703"