Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPP)
"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 increase in protection level

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Shortcuts

    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.


    Survivor Series: WarGames (2024)

    Reason: I've previously asked for protection for this page here and was told to come back if more issues occured. Even though it's semi-protected it is still being contantly disruptied. I'm asking for extended confirmed protection not indefinite but at least for a month, maybe a bit after just in case they disrupt the article after the event has concluded. [1] [2] [3] [4]] [5] [6] If you need any more evidence to confirm anything please let me know in the reply. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the other users you've reverted recently are also extended-confirmed; they wouldn't be affected. Are their edits the ones that you are referring to? Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. This has died down somewhat; if we have extended confirmed users edit-warring, than the edit-warring noticeboard might be more effective. Lectonar (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    15.ai

    Reason: High level of edit warring on semi-protected article. In addition, there seems to be a high level of COI edits from users who previously engaged in a pattern of disruptive edits. Despite previous discussions about notability, the same issues continue to resurface, creating an unproductive cycle of content removal and restoration. The editors' actions appear to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing. (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1).

    I plan to clean up the article after it has been protected, as per WP:BOLD. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: So you want extended-confirmed protection? Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that would be good, especially if the protection can be added indefinitely (since this article has been extended-confirmed protected multiple times and it still sees a large amount of vandalism and edit warring to this day). Out of curiosity, is it also possible to add a protection against specific users that have been participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing? HackerKnownAs (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but we have Wikipedia:Partial blocks which, imho, are somewhat less used than they should be. Lectonar (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, thanks. Specifically, I've noticed a disproportionately large amount of nonconstructive edits (some blatantly violating WP:YESPOV and accusing editors of violating WP:COI with no evidence) from User:BrocadeRiverPoems, a relatively new Wikipedia editor who seems to be more concerned with arguing the legitimacy of previous editors than constructively editing the article (see: the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1). I suggest a partial block over the participants of this edit war on this article, but an extended-confirmed protection should do the trick as well. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like issuing partial blocks without any warning, though, especially to a user who seems in general to be contributing constructively. If we're going to discuss that, perhaps AN/I is a better forum than this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a rather curious characterization of my activity. I pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them. I noted extensive WP:SPA activity from yourself and others centered on 15.ai, including several accounts that appeared at the AfD for the purpose of voting to keep the page and nothing else while also noting the unusual circumstances in which the article was elevated to "Good" status. As for "evidence" of COI editing, as I pointed out in my post on the talkpage, there are clear edits that can be linked to the so-called Pony Preservation Project which engaged in considerable off-site coordination to edit the article and which is itself linked to 15.ai and listed as "invaluable" on an archived version of 15.ai. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because edits like [7] that blatantly violate WP:YESPOV are totally constructive, yes? And again, I am not involved with the PPP, and you have neither pointed out who you suspect are involved in COI nor have you given any evidence of said editing. You say there are "clear edits" and yet you have not given examples of any of them - you are making baseless accusations and grasping at straws, and are actively discouraging Wikipedeans who only want to help.
    To accuse me of others of COI and SPA activity (which, by the way, is blatantly untrue, if you'd seen my history of helping out with articles relevant to 4chan) because of your extremely strange obsession over the article along with this kind of dishonest conduct and projection is appalling. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is granted extended-confirmed protection, I am requesting extended confirmed access to help with cleanup. I previously held this right and used it for similar maintenance work on this article when I asked for the article to be extended-confirmed protected a year ago. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should that happen, you are referred to WP:REQPERM. That request is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, thank you. If the extended-confirmed protection is granted, I'll make a request there. HackerKnownAs (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This can't be solved via protection; it is a mix of content dispute with behavioural problems, and has found its way to AN in the meantime. Lectonar (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucky Baskhar

    Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Changing the budget and box office without providing reliable sources. Charliehdb (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we upgrade to ECP, either that stays till May or we shorten the protection term, due to the limitations of MediaWiki which don't allow us to layer protection beyond PC, so once protection expires we'd have to reprotect it. Which are you comfortable with? Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bully (album)

    Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. l ke (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mauritania

    Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Looking at the article's history shows that IPs have been been removing the same content for a while. Semi-protecting it like all the article about countries will prevent the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of active rebel groups

    Reason: High level of IP vandalism Zinderboff(talk) 03:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of NHL players with 1,000 points

    Semi-protection: IPs and new users scrambling to update the page for Connor McDavid's 1,000th, despite clear directives on the page to wait until the end of the season to comprehensively update. The Kip (contribs) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Madame Web (film)

    Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is currently an edit war being engaged at this article with one editor refusing to discuss on the talk page and repeatedly reverting while focusing on false accusations. Protection is clearly in order for a civil discussion to be had. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    KLDO-TV

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Disruptive editing by IPs. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kanguva

    Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from multiple IP. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism and disruptive editing between IPs; previous protection expired yesterday. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for reduction in protection level

    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    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.

    Shortcuts

    Qeparo

    Reason: Not such a popular page to require indefinite semi-protection. 62.74.24.175 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps; it has nevertheless been the subject of regular edit warring for well over the past year, and is within a contentious topic area (WP:CT/EE) to boot. If it's popular with edit warriors, we protect it when asked, as I did. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case Most edit warring happened by registered users though; Anyways, I suggest an unprotection and it can be protected anytime if edit warring occurs anew. 62.74.24.154 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It always takes at least 2 to edit war, and it doesn't matter if they're IPs or registered users. I think protection works as intended. If you see a dire need to edit, use edit requests. I would not unprotect. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Halsey (singer)

    Reason: Protected over 6 years ago. Vandals would have long gone by now. Protecting admin is not active hence this request. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Courcelles:, in case you're active at the moment. But ... this is one of those articles that I can easily see attracting disruption if it were unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel Case I had been thinking about this as well and came to the same conclusion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Username policy

    Reason: This is a bit of a funny one. I need to ask a question about the username policy to make sure the name I'm going to use is allowed before I make an account, but I can't use the talk page until I've made an account! 153.90.20.14 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This page, not the one I linked: Wikipedia talk:Username policy 153.90.20.14 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like you can ask your question on my talk page and I'll try my best to help you. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WT:Username policy is for discussion about the policy itself, not specific usernames. If you don't want to take Dr vulpes up on his offer, you can also ask at WP:Teahouse. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Rustad

    Reason: I’m reaching out to request a review of the current protection status on the Wikipedia page for John Rustad, the current Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia. Given that Rustad’s notability is mostly regional and that the 2024 B.C. Provincial Election is now over, I believe reducing the protection level to "semi-protection" or completely would be appropriate.

    While he was indeed a controversial candidate during the recent election, it seems disproportionate to maintain "extended lock" status, especially compared to other high-profile Canadian politicians such as federal leaders Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre, and Jagmeet Singh, who only have "semi-protection" or, in some cases, no protection at all. Notably, B.C. Premier David Eby’s page also lacks any protection lock despite his prominent role.

    Allowing "semi-protected" access would enable more editors with relevant knowledge of B.C. politics to improve the page. If any vandalism were to occur after this reduction, it could certainly be grounds to re-evaluate and re-implement "extended lock" protection.

    Thank you for considering this request. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @TimeToFixThis Have you asked at User talk:ToBeFree? He's the administrator that protected the page. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would he not see this on the talk page then? TimeToFixThis (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)

    Unprotection: Talk page was move protected, main page was not, protection needs removal or page swapped to Talk: Lost (TV series) by an admin, request left at WP:RM/TR - sorry, I wouldn’t have closed the RM if I’d noticed, a talk page being move protected independently of the main article is unusual. ASUKITE 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for edits to a protected page

    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    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.
    Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


    Gaza genocide

    My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:

    "She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"

    1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.

    Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[8] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.

    2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[9][10][11].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[12]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[13] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[14] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[15]][[16]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 2

    Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
    My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
    If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[17][18] and a form of Holocaust erasure[19], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[20][21][22][23]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 3

    The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.

    Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    List of highest-grossing Indian films

    in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two-state solution

    I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:

    International Positions on the Two-State Solution

    Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]

    EsenL (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Reply to Parliamentary Question on Palestine". Retrieved 2024-11-12.
    Source? Providing a source to back up your edit drastically improves the chance it'll be done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    have added! thanks! EsenL (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide - the 186,000 indirect deaths estimate

    In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":

    Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates". The Lancet. November 4, 2024.
    2. ^ "'186,000 Gazans dead': Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel". The Jerusalem Post. July 9, 2024. 
    Zlmark (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Springfield pet-eating hoax

    I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.

    I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".

    In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.

    Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".

    Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The talk-page protection cannot be reversed here; either contact El C or appeal at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to get it lifted. (I will note, however, that the semi-protection is set to lift 16 December.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza genocide 4

    I suggest changing the map on the states agreeing with with the Genocide charge (green coloured) to include Spain and Ireland, as these declared to join South Africa's case in the ICJ and generally agree with the allegations in public statements. Ireland also passed a motion in the parliament declaring it a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:9a4:6900:50f:51e:c5cd:b7cf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Handled requests

    A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1257158448"