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.
Reason: High level of edit warring. The talk page suggests that some of the edits are based on WP:OR. Argenator (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined For now it seems they are trying to be part of the talk page discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The article has been disrupted by various IPs for months. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 92.53.12.0/23 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. from the article for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – IP range edit-warring over plot summary. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. I have duly warned them, which hadn't been done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recently died. Hence lot of edits which is hard to verify. Aadirulez8 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined Seems like the death has now been sourced. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Slow edit war by IPs adding unnecessary trivial information to the article. Level 4 warnings given to IPs on 17 and 20 September. Third IP reported to WP:AIV a few minutes ago. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reason: Ongoing whitewashing. Repeat Removal of sourced content. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Or you could open discussion on the talk page. No one seems to have ever used it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism and LTA; heavily vandalized with unsourced edits by a user named Exclamation3 Ex-Clamation within the last hour, these edits are similar to those made by recent Jeremiah Caquias sockpuppets. 2603:6081:893D:13AC:8832:E50D:A260:4C12 (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes: BLP policy violations – This is one of those frustrating cases where people on the Internet have found information about something that is quite likely true, but has yet to be featured in any RS, and because one of the people involved is still alive, there's no wiggle room on the primary sources. Every few months, someone adds the same non-RS information, and sooner or later I or someone else removes it, but sometimes it stays up for hours or days. I think PCP would be a reasonable solution here, although I wouldn't be averse to semi either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Tamzin: Some inline comments placed carefully in the article might not hurt. There's also a lack of user talk page warnings for sourcing and original research. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Per WP:CT/A-I. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Per WP:CT/A-I. Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Repeated recent (last week or so) disruptive editing by new, likely COI accounts looking to remove sourced content that is "negative" towards the subject. Request re-establishment of semi-protection for at least six months to hopefully deal with the issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Can somebody unprotect Magnolia677's talk page please?
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
{{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.{{Edit COI}} template should be used.Change the "mainly Hezbollah members" note on the casualties to "mainly civilians" as a large swath of Hezbollah casualties were apart of their political wing and considered civilians under international law, as well as ensuring the hundreds of medical staff who use pagers and were injured are not ignored. By simply stating that the majority of casualties were apart of Hezbollah, is suggests that the majority of casualties were non-civilian, which is inherently incorrect as stated above. It is imperative that this fact be clarified to prevent misinformation and further demonization of Lebanon.
Furthermore, it must be stated clearly and constantly that not only were the vast majority of the victims civilians, but that such an attack is, by definition and intent, a terror attack on Lebanon by israel (as israel has now confirmed they were behind it and had been planning it for an unspecified length of time). The severity of the attack in the context of international law must also be stated clearly as this is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention and general international law that protects civilians from attack and prohibits the use of terrorism a a legitimate manner of warfare.
For evidence to the above claims, see https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/9/18/israels-war-on-gaza-live-thousands-injured-in-lebanon-pager-explosions in which multiple quotes from israel, Hezbollah, the Lebanese Health Ministry, the UN, and various other third-parties with weight on the issue can be found and used to validate the above claims. Against the Empire (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined. The talk page is no longer protected. Please make a new request there, addressing the objections above when you do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)(I did not put the talk page by mistake in the page title field, that was intentional)
Add topic about the sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" in the third paragraph of the article, with the next paragraph as the body of the topic:
The sentence "It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers" appears to contradict other pieces of information in the article, specifically that two children died from the explosions. Hezbollah doesn't seem to have a history of using child soldiers in any capacity. The reported ages of the children who died seem to be around the range of 8-11, so I think it's safe to assume that the children who died were not members of Hezbollah. The size of the explosions wouldn't of been enough to kill someone without being in close proximity to it (its not like the pagers had a blast radius of several hundred meters), which implies that the children were either holding the pager or in close proximity to the pagers. Therefore, it can be assumed that non-Hezbollah members were carrying pagers. Granted, I doubt these children were carrying around a pager wherever they went, but they must've been relatively close to it in order to be killed by the pager (as in, holding or carrying the pager).
The reason why I'm saying to add a topic to the talk page instead of just "remove this sentence from the article" is because it's debatable if it actually does contradict, and I'd prefer to get some consensus about it beforehand. I can't request an edit of the article on the talk page due to it being protected, so I can't just use the edit request to gauge consensus on this issue. This could also very well be considered WP:OR, I'm of the opinion that "the explosive that requires one to be close to it to hurt them implies that people who were hurt by it were close to it" would fall under WP:CALC, but I could see consensus going either way on this. AlexChillOut (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Declined. This isn't a rejection of your request, it's just that the talk page is no longer protected, so you can now make the request there. It really belongs there instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Section "History", paragraph 3:
In 1967 Marvin Minsky agreed, writing, "within a generation ... the problem of creating 'artificial intelligence' will substantially be solved".
Replace [ agreed, writing, "within ] with [ agreed, writing that "within ] to make the comma usage a bit cleaner.
Normally would have suggested minor changes like these at its talk page, but since the TP is also protected, well...172.112.199.166 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.