| Revision as of 08:15, 11 June 2006 view sourceVoABot (talk | contribs)Bots29,709 editsm BOT - Moving/clearing older requests. ← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:26, 11 June 2006 view source FussMuster (talk | contribs)4 edits →Please unprotect thewolfstarNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| <!--############################################################## | <!--############################################################## | ||
| PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS AT THE TOP OF THIS SECTION! | PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS AT THE TOP OF THIS SECTION! | ||
| Add ===={{La|THE ARTICLE NAME}}====as the request title | Add ===={{La|THE ARTICLE NAME}}====as the request title | ||
| ###############Please only edit below this line.###############--> | ###############Please only edit below this line.###############--> | ||
| = Please unprotect thewolfstar = | |||
| Please take the protect code off of ] so she can defend herself. Thankyou. ] 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===={{la|Flood}}==== | ===={{la|Flood}}==== | ||
| \\\'Semi-protection. It seems that there are a lot of vandals who find the work \\\"dike\\\" particularly hilarious. -- ] 06:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not enough vandalism to protect. Please watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. ] (]) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | :Not enough vandalism to protect. Please watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. ] (]) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Ok, thanks for the quick response! -- ] 06:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Ok, thanks for the quick response! -- ] 06:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 31: | Line 38: | ||
| ===={{la|June_6}}==== | ===={{la|June_6}}==== | ||
| '''Unprotection'''. Relisting because the 6/6/6 edit war seems to have come to an end. --] 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Relisting because the 6/6/6 edit war seems to have come to an end. --] 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Unprotected'''. ] (]) 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotected\\\'\\\'\\\'. ] (]) 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{La|Psephos}}==== | ===={{La|Psephos}}==== | ||
| Was improperly protected by a party in the dispute there to his desired version. ] 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | Was improperly protected by a party in the dispute there to his desired version. ] 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Hi Margana, I agree it would have been better if an outside party had protected this, but I think it's best to leave it protected for a bit, as the edits concern a living person and this article was used before as a vehicle to attack someone. Perhaps you could try to come up with a compromise on the talk page in the meantime? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Hi Margana, I agree it would have been better if an outside party had protected this, but I think it\\\'s best to leave it protected for a bit, as the edits concern a living person and this article was used before as a vehicle to attack someone. Perhaps you could try to come up with a compromise on the talk page in the meantime? ] <sup><font color=\\\"Purple\\\">]</font></sup> 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Wow, I think that was a really bad move on ]'s behalf, but I don't see it as a reason for unprotection. Perhaps as a reason for an RfC though. ] (]) 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | :Wow, I think that was a really bad move on ]\\\'s behalf, but I don\\\'t see it as a reason for unprotection. Perhaps as a reason for an RfC though. ] (]) 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{Lat|Falun Gong}}==== | ===={{Lat|Falun Gong}}==== | ||
| I understand that this is a subject with loads of rumours being spread about. But why is the article not protected, but the talk page is? | I understand that this is a subject with loads of rumours being spread about. But why is the article not protected, but the talk page is? | ||
| How is anybody going to help get it straight, if one wants to keep it up to NPOV, but any change one makes is being deleted since one can't explain it, because there is no talk page? | How is anybody going to help get it straight, if one wants to keep it up to NPOV, but any change one makes is being deleted since one can\\\'t explain it, because there is no talk page? | ||
| And why has this reuquest of mine been simply deleted yesterday without any explaination, only minutes after i put it here ? | And why has this reuquest of mine been simply deleted yesterday without any explaination, only minutes after i put it here ? | ||
| Line 49: | Line 56: | ||
| --] 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | --] 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I've unprotected. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :I\\\'ve unprotected. ] <sup><font color=\\\"Purple\\\">]</font></sup> 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::This was protected because of malicious vandalism taking the form of vitriolic personal attacks. The vandal also hit several user pages and user talk pages, including mine. Please reconsider. ] 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ::This was protected because of malicious vandalism taking the form of vitriolic personal attacks. The vandal also hit several user pages and user talk pages, including mine. Please reconsider. ] 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 59: | Line 66: | ||
| ] 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ] 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Above user merely wishes to gain ground in an ensuing edit war which, as it happens, proves the necessity of protection. ] 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Above user merely wishes to gain ground in an ensuing edit war which, as it happens, proves the necessity of protection. ] 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::And there's the sockpuppet. ] | ::And there\\\'s the sockpuppet. ] | ||
| :::I have unprotected it, and it will be reprotected very soon if the edit war starts again, and if that is because of sockpuppetry, at the place I unprotected it today. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :::I have unprotected it, and it will be reprotected very soon if the edit war starts again, and if that is because of sockpuppetry, at the place I unprotected it today. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 76: | Line 83: | ||
| ===={{Lt|merge}}==== | ===={{Lt|merge}}==== | ||
| Temp Unprotect... Actually just '''need this added''' to its '''See also''' section: ']'; this template calls merge, and it's talk page was the oldest item on the merge backlog list, now gone. Thanks fer doin' me 'light work' (<g>) // <B>]</B><font color="green">]</font> 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | Temp Unprotect... Actually just \\\'\\\'\\\'need this added\\\'\\\'\\\' to its \\\'\\\'\\\'See also\\\'\\\'\\\' section: \\\']\\\'; this template calls merge, and it\\\'s talk page was the oldest item on the merge backlog list, now gone. Thanks fer doin\\\' me \\\'light work\\\' (<g>) // <B>]</B><font color=\\\"green\\\">]</font> 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I am actually puzzled. The template is a redirect, so should not be used if possible, and I can not find that it is included anywhere. So, it should not be in the '''see also''' section. So, if you would mind explaining why it should be added, that would be great. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | :I am actually puzzled. The template is a redirect, so should not be used if possible, and I can not find that it is included anywhere. So, it should not be in the \\\'\\\'\\\'see also\\\'\\\'\\\' section. So, if you would mind explaining why it should be added, that would be great. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Seconded.''']''' 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Seconded.\\\'\\\'\\\']\\\'\\\'\\\' 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 84: | Line 91: | ||
| ==Fullfilled/denied requests== | ==Fullfilled/denied requests== | ||
| ===={{la|Tony Blair}}==== | ===={{la|Tony Blair}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection''' Usual reason. ] 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' Usual reason. ] 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Semi-protected''', of the 17 edits, all 15 IP-edits were reverted. I think we have to live with it like we do with the GW Bush page. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\', of the 17 edits, all 15 IP-edits were reverted. I think we have to live with it like we do with the GW Bush page. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks, and I agree with your comment. Any suggestions as to how we establish a consensus on this? ] 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ::Thanks, and I agree with your comment. Any suggestions as to how we establish a consensus on this? ] 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Take it to ], that is the place for this kind of discussions. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :::Take it to ], that is the place for this kind of discussions. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Carthage}}==== | ===={{la|Carthage}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection''' - Page has been semi-protected in the past due to antagonistic, POV, uncited, "historical revisionist" edits by an anon user. Content issues were generally resolved in ], with general agreement about adherence to Misplaced Pages policies concerning article balance, and citation of sources, with the anon user beign the sole hold out. Anon user resorted to constant reverts, personal attacks, and used their anonymous status to avoid censure due to their repeated violation of the ]. | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - Page has been semi-protected in the past due to antagonistic, POV, uncited, \\\"historical revisionist\\\" edits by an anon user. Content issues were generally resolved in ], with general agreement about adherence to Misplaced Pages policies concerning article balance, and citation of sources, with the anon user beign the sole hold out. Anon user resorted to constant reverts, personal attacks, and used their anonymous status to avoid censure due to their repeated violation of the ]. | ||
| Page was placed under semi-protection by {{User|Katefan0}}. Page protection was eventually lifted, with no resumption of the "revert edit war" until now. | Page was placed under semi-protection by {{User|Katefan0}}. Page protection was eventually lifted, with no resumption of the \\\"revert edit war\\\" until now. | ||
| Recent , along with comments left on the talk page (] and ]; Compare to attitudes expressed by "Marduk" - in which discussion I am sorry to say I ''also'' display temper which exacerbated the situation) | Recent , along with comments left on the talk page (] and ]; Compare to attitudes expressed by \\\"Marduk\\\" - in which discussion I am sorry to say I \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' display temper which exacerbated the situation) | ||
| While the situation has not ''yet'' "gotten out of hand", given the '''extreme''' likelihood that the current anon editor using reverts is the same "Marduk", given their expressed attitudes and rhetoric, it is ''very'' likely this could escalate very quickly. This request is meant to "nip the issue in the bud". - {{user|Vedexent}} 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | While the situation has not \\\'\\\'yet\\\'\\\' \\\"gotten out of hand\\\", given the \\\'\\\'\\\'extreme\\\'\\\'\\\' likelihood that the current anon editor using reverts is the same \\\"Marduk\\\", given their expressed attitudes and rhetoric, it is \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' likely this could escalate very quickly. This request is meant to \\\"nip the issue in the bud\\\". - {{user|Vedexent}} 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Given history, and similarity of what is happening now, concur that semi-protection at least is required.] 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Given history, and similarity of what is happening now, concur that semi-protection at least is required.] 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Given the prehistory of this page semi-protection seems warranted (I'm a new editor to that page, but I read the archived version of its talk page.) It seems like a recurring problem here. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Given the prehistory of this page semi-protection seems warranted (I\\\'m a new editor to that page, but I read the archived version of its talk page.) It seems like a recurring problem here. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I would just like to chime in and show my support for semi-protection. There's nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion, but this guy is just obnoxious, destructive, and childish. ] 10 June 2006. | :I would just like to chime in and show my support for semi-protection. There\\\'s nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion, but this guy is just obnoxious, destructive, and childish. ] 10 June 2006. | ||
| :I support semi-protection for ]. Anonymos the Younger shows the same temperamental faults as Pseudo-Marduk. In the short time since the page was unlocked it's already much improved from what it was — yet that one would remove recent improvements which do not soothe that one's POV. --] 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :I support semi-protection for ]. Anonymos the Younger shows the same temperamental faults as Pseudo-Marduk. In the short time since the page was unlocked it\\\'s already much improved from what it was — yet that one would remove recent improvements which do not soothe that one\\\'s POV. --] 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Apartheid outside of South Africa}}==== | ===={{la|Apartheid outside of South Africa}}==== | ||
| '''Full protection''' - edit war over Israel. ] 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - edit war over Israel. ] 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Yikes! Yes. I will definitely protect it. Edit war and move war at the same time. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Yikes! Yes. I will definitely protect it. Edit war and move war at the same time. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Anarchism}}==== | ===={{la|Anarchism}}==== | ||
| '''Full Protection''' requested for ]. There is currently a revert war going on between ], and an anomynous user. There was some reverting between several users, but now it has got worse.]<sup> (] | ] | ])</sup> 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Full Protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested for ]. There is currently a revert war going on between ], and an anomynous user. There was some reverting between several users, but now it has got worse.]<sup> (] | ] | ])</sup> 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Protected. This one saddens me. I left this page for 3 months. Come back and this article is still having problems. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Protected. This one saddens me. I left this page for 3 months. Come back and this article is still having problems. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|RuneScape}}==== | ===={{la|RuneScape}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection''' - It was semi-protected not so long ago, and with the removal of protection, returns a storm of vandalism, maybe it's the highly edited position that attracts the idiots, but the ratio of worthwhile edits to vandallism and reverts is now on the floor! ] 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - It was semi-protected not so long ago, and with the removal of protection, returns a storm of vandalism, maybe it\\\'s the highly edited position that attracts the idiots, but the ratio of worthwhile edits to vandallism and reverts is now on the floor! ] 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Done. -- ] ] ] ] ] 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :Done. -- ] ] ] ] ] 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Buu}}==== | ===={{la|Buu}}==== | ||
| '''Full protection''' requested to enforce a cool-down for {{user|Wiki-star}}, who is fresh off a short block for 3RR. User has immediately taken to reverting page as before, and repeatedly requests to be permabanned. ] 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested to enforce a cool-down for {{user|Wiki-star}}, who is fresh off a short block for 3RR. User has immediately taken to reverting page as before, and repeatedly requests to be permabanned. ] 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :In a case like this, protection isn't the answer. I'd take this up at the ]. Protecting an article because of just one user isn't a good idea. Better to just have the user blocked. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :In a case like this, protection isn\\\'t the answer. I\\\'d take this up at the ]. Protecting an article because of just one user isn\\\'t a good idea. Better to just have the user blocked. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Opus Dei}}==== | ===={{la|Opus Dei}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection''' requested due to persistant vandalism , , by anonymous IP-user 58.160.19x.xxx, who has been warned repeatedly , , . For making false edit summaries and using them for unproven defamatory claims this user should be blocked. As this is ineffective due to changing IP numbers, at least the vandalised page should be protected. Since this article currently is under mediation, contributing editors have better use for their time than constantly to revert vandalism. --] 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested due to persistant vandalism , , by anonymous IP-user 58.160.19x.xxx, who has been warned repeatedly , , . For making false edit summaries and using them for unproven defamatory claims this user should be blocked. As this is ineffective due to changing IP numbers, at least the vandalised page should be protected. Since this article currently is under mediation, contributing editors have better use for their time than constantly to revert vandalism. --] 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Semi-protected'''. Might I also add that the article is ''really'' long; someone might want to think about splitting it up a bit. ] (]) 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. Might I also add that the article is \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' long; someone might want to think about splitting it up a bit. ] (]) 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{La|Personal rapid transit/UniModal}}==== | ===={{La|Personal rapid transit/UniModal}}==== | ||
| This page has been protected for 1 and a half months and is now obsolete. The page was protected because of a dispute as to whether it should be wiped and redirected, or not. Now the page has been cleaned up and the protected page should redirect to it. Therefore I request that this page hould be unprotected so it may redirect to a more appropriate (and specific) article. ] 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | This page has been protected for 1 and a half months and is now obsolete. The page was protected because of a dispute as to whether it should be wiped and redirected, or not. Now the page has been cleaned up and the protected page should redirect to it. Therefore I request that this page hould be unprotected so it may redirect to a more appropriate (and specific) article. ] 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Unprotected'''. ] (]) 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotected\\\'\\\'\\\'. ] (]) 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 141: | Line 148: | ||
| I request that the current status of full protection be reversed to semi-protection, because things have calmed down. ] 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | I request that the current status of full protection be reversed to semi-protection, because things have calmed down. ] 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I am requesting unprotection for editing, that is to add new material.] 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | I am requesting unprotection for editing, that is to add new material.] 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: Please keep it protected and do '''NOT''' unprotect it. The changes suggested by Editorius are not acceptable. --- ] 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :: Please keep it protected and do \\\'\\\'\\\'NOT\\\'\\\'\\\' unprotect it. The changes suggested by Editorius are not acceptable. --- ] 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Unprotected by Dbachmann.''']''' 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :::Unprotected by Dbachmann.\\\'\\\'\\\']\\\'\\\'\\\' 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Dbachmann himself was involved in edits of ] article. He is also taking sides . How can an editor who is taking side can unprotect it? He has made since last unprotection was lifted. That means if I am an administrator then I can also unprotect when I feel like editing an article? I would like if administrator who had no interest in the article would have taken the unprotection decision. This is not a nice thing happened here. --- ] 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :::: Dbachmann himself was involved in edits of ] article. He is also taking sides . How can an editor who is taking side can unprotect it? He has made since last unprotection was lifted. That means if I am an administrator then I can also unprotect when I feel like editing an article? I would like if administrator who had no interest in the article would have taken the unprotection decision. This is not a nice thing happened here. --- ] 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{La|Israeli apartheid (epithet)}}==== | ===={{La|Israeli apartheid (epithet)}}==== | ||
| 1) Move back to ] which was the article's name until shortly before protection anmd was also the name under which the article survived an AFD. ] is a POV description that assumes bad faith by people using the phrase (ie people like Desmond Tutu) when many who use the phrase do so as a means of comparison rather than insult. | 1) Move back to ] which was the article\\\'s name until shortly before protection anmd was also the name under which the article survived an AFD. ] is a POV description that assumes bad faith by people using the phrase (ie people like Desmond Tutu) when many who use the phrase do so as a means of comparison rather than insult. | ||
| 2) Similarly, change the first paragraph to a more neutral form. Please change to: | 2) Similarly, change the first paragraph to a more neutral form. Please change to: | ||
| :'''Israeli apartheid''' (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country's policies towards the ] and ] populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a ] and do not consider Israel's practices to be comparable to the actions of the ]-era ]n government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic. | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Israeli apartheid\\\'\\\'\\\' (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country\\\'s policies towards the ] and ] populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a ] and do not consider Israel\\\'s practices to be comparable to the actions of the ]-era ]n government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic. | ||
| See ] | See ] | ||
| ] 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | ] 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I will repond to this request at the talk page as I protected it and might start mediating on that page . -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | :I will repond to this request at the talk page as I protected it and might start mediating on that page . -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: Please undo this move. The title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a "phrase" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). This is similar to ]. A rename request doesn't even belong here. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | :: Please undo this move. The title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a \\\"phrase\\\" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). This is similar to ]. A rename request doesn\\\'t even belong here. ←] <sup>]</sup> 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Most of teh discussion is at the talk page, I think it is better to continue there. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | :::Most of teh discussion is at the talk page, I think it is better to continue there. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::Parenthetical phrases after the main title of a Misplaced Pages article are used to disambiguate articles from other things with the same name. They ''cannot'' be used to add a political ''comment'' to a title. ] 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | :::Parenthetical phrases after the main title of a Misplaced Pages article are used to disambiguate articles from other things with the same name. They \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' be used to add a political \\\'\\\'comment\\\'\\\' to a title. ] 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{La|Samuel Lane}}==== | ===={{La|Samuel Lane}}==== | ||
| '''Unprotection'''. An article about a musician was deleted and this was protected. But this is also the name of a historical person (see ), who seems notable. There's now a link to him from ] and I would like it to be a redlink, so that anybody can easily create an article (I'm hoping somebody else will, but I might myself). --] 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. An article about a musician was deleted and this was protected. But this is also the name of a historical person (see ), who seems notable. There\\\'s now a link to him from ] and I would like it to be a redlink, so that anybody can easily create an article (I\\\'m hoping somebody else will, but I might myself). --] 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Sounds alright to me. It was protected way back in January; I'm sure ] has found better things to do now. Consider it deleted. ] (]) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | :Sounds alright to me. It was protected way back in January; I\\\'m sure ] has found better things to do now. Consider it deleted. ] (]) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{La|Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi|}}==== | ===={{La|Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi|}}==== | ||
| '''Unprotection'''. As per ]'s suggestion, please unprotect, since the article is probably now less prone to vandalism, given that his death is no longer breaking news. ] 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. As per ]\\\'s suggestion, please unprotect, since the article is probably now less prone to vandalism, given that his death is no longer breaking news. ] 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I've unprotected this since it is linked from the main page. ] (]) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | :I\\\'ve unprotected this since it is linked from the main page. ] (]) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Muswellbrook, New South Wales}}==== | ===={{la|Muswellbrook, New South Wales}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection'''. Vandalised several times over the last 2 weeks by what looks like kids of the area. Semi protection will probably only be needed for less than a month, until they get tired of trying. ] 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Vandalised several times over the last 2 weeks by what looks like kids of the area. Semi protection will probably only be needed for less than a month, until they get tired of trying. ] 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Not enough to protect currently. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. ] (]) 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :Not enough to protect currently. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. ] (]) 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::OK, but how do you warn people when they are not registered and have a different IP address each time? ] 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ::OK, but how do you warn people when they are not registered and have a different IP address each time? ] 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 177: | Line 184: | ||
| ===={{la|Blog}}==== | ===={{la|Blog}}==== | ||
| '''Semi-protection''' constantly link spammed. ]] 06:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' constantly link spammed. ]] 06:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Semi-protected'''. ] (]) 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. ] (]) 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===={{la|Mail-order bride}}==== | ===={{la|Mail-order bride}}==== | ||
| '''Full protection'''. Month-long edit war is tiresome. I'm hoping a cooling off will yield either compromise or the filing of a ]. --] 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | \\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Month-long edit war is tiresome. I\\\'m hoping a cooling off will yield either compromise or the filing of a ]. --] 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Protected'''. ] (]) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | :\\\'\\\'\\\'Protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. ] (]) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:26, 11 June 2006
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| 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 unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit | ||
 Archives |
|
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 |
Current requests for protection
Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.
Please unprotect thewolfstar
Please take the protect code off of User_talk:thewolfstar so she can defend herself. Thankyou. FussMuster 08:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Flood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'Semi-protection. It seems that there are a lot of vandals who find the work \\\"dike\\\" particularly hilarious. -- DImfeld 06:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not enough vandalism to protect. Please watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the quick response! -- DImfeld 06:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for unprotection
ShortcutsBefore posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.
June_6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Relisting because the 6/6/6 edit war seems to have come to an end. --Coredesat 22:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotected\\\'\\\'\\\'. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Psephos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Was improperly protected by a party in the dispute there to his desired version. Margana 13:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Margana, I agree it would have been better if an outside party had protected this, but I think it\\\'s best to leave it protected for a bit, as the edits concern a living person and this article was used before as a vehicle to attack someone. Perhaps you could try to come up with a compromise on the talk page in the meantime? SlimVirgin 22:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I think that was a really bad move on User:Snottygobble\\\'s behalf, but I don\\\'t see it as a reason for unprotection. Perhaps as a reason for an RfC though. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Falun Gong (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
I understand that this is a subject with loads of rumours being spread about. But why is the article not protected, but the talk page is? How is anybody going to help get it straight, if one wants to keep it up to NPOV, but any change one makes is being deleted since one can\\\'t explain it, because there is no talk page? And why has this reuquest of mine been simply deleted yesterday without any explaination, only minutes after i put it here ?
The misstake that was made on that talk page was not focusing the discussion on how to make the article keep up to the NPOV standard, and so the discussion got longer and arguments came up. But having a talk page is necassary since nothing can be solved by simple kicking things out, and refusing to explain why, and at same time not allowing anyone to voice their opinions about it. --Hoerth 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I\\\'ve unprotected. SlimVirgin 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- This was protected because of malicious vandalism taking the form of vitriolic personal attacks. The vandal also hit several user pages and user talk pages, including mine. Please reconsider. CovenantD 22:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Cuban Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I think that things have cooled down somewhat, and I suggest and request that the protection be lifted. BruceHallman 01:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, be protected from anonymous edits to prevent excessive sockpuppeting. Jens Nielsen 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Above user merely wishes to gain ground in an ensuing edit war which, as it happens, proves the necessity of protection. 141.153.121.104 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- And there\\\'s the sockpuppet. Jens Nielsen
- I have unprotected it, and it will be reprotected very soon if the edit war starts again, and if that is because of sockpuppetry, at the place I unprotected it today. -- Kim van der Linde 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- And there\\\'s the sockpuppet. Jens Nielsen
Nadia Almada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I beleive the issues have now been resolved after discussion on discussion page. Editors who disagreed have come to an understanding. It seems to have been a mix up
- Has never been protected, so no issue.-- Kim van der Linde 16:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Current requests for significant edits to a protected page
ShortcutIdeally, 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 Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages: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.
Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Temp Unprotect... Actually just \\\'\\\'\\\'need this added\\\'\\\'\\\' to its \\\'\\\'\\\'See also\\\'\\\'\\\' section: \\\'Template:MergeVfD\\\'; this template calls merge, and it\\\'s talk page was the oldest item on the merge backlog list, now gone. Thanks fer doin\\\' me \\\'light work\\\' (<g>) // FrankB 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am actually puzzled. The template is a redirect, so should not be used if possible, and I can not find that it is included anywhere. So, it should not be in the \\\'\\\'\\\'see also\\\'\\\'\\\' section. So, if you would mind explaining why it should be added, that would be great. -- Kim van der Linde 02:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded.\\\'\\\'\\\'Voice-of-All\\\'\\\'\\\' 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Fullfilled/denied requests
Tony Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' Usual reason. SP-KP 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\', of the 17 edits, all 15 IP-edits were reverted. I think we have to live with it like we do with the GW Bush page. -- Kim van der Linde 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with your comment. Any suggestions as to how we establish a consensus on this? SP-KP 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Take it to WP:AN, that is the place for this kind of discussions. -- Kim van der Linde 17:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I agree with your comment. Any suggestions as to how we establish a consensus on this? SP-KP 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Carthage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - Page has been semi-protected in the past due to antagonistic, POV, uncited, \\\"historical revisionist\\\" edits by an anon user. Content issues were generally resolved in Talk:Carthage, with general agreement about adherence to Misplaced Pages policies concerning article balance, and citation of sources, with the anon user beign the sole hold out. Anon user resorted to constant reverts, personal attacks, and used their anonymous status to avoid censure due to their repeated violation of the Three Revert Rrule.
Page was placed under semi-protection by Katefan0 (talk · contribs). Page protection was eventually lifted, with no resumption of the \\\"revert edit war\\\" until now.
Recent blanking and reverts, along with comments left on the talk page (here and here; Compare to attitudes expressed by \\\"Marduk\\\" archived here - in which discussion I am sorry to say I \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' display temper which exacerbated the situation)
While the situation has not \\\'\\\'yet\\\'\\\' \\\"gotten out of hand\\\", given the \\\'\\\'\\\'extreme\\\'\\\'\\\' likelihood that the current anon editor using reverts is the same \\\"Marduk\\\", given their expressed attitudes and rhetoric, it is \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' likely this could escalate very quickly. This request is meant to \\\"nip the issue in the bud\\\". - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 14:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Given history, and similarity of what is happening now, concur that semi-protection at least is required.Bridesmill 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Given the prehistory of this page semi-protection seems warranted (I\\\'m a new editor to that page, but I read the archived version of its talk page.) It seems like a recurring problem here. Valentinian 15:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would just like to chime in and show my support for semi-protection. There\\\'s nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion, but this guy is just obnoxious, destructive, and childish. KongminRegent 10 June 2006.
- I support semi-protection for Carthage. Anonymos the Younger shows the same temperamental faults as Pseudo-Marduk. In the short time since the page was unlocked it\\\'s already much improved from what it was — yet that one would remove recent improvements which do not soothe that one\\\'s POV. --Americist 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Apartheid outside of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - edit war over Israel. Homey 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yikes! Yes. I will definitely protect it. Edit war and move war at the same time. --\\\'\\\'Woohookitty\\\'\\\' 07:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Full Protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested for anarchism. There is currently a revert war going on between user:AaronS, and an anomynous user. There was some reverting between several users, but now it has got worse.CaptainJ 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Protected. This one saddens me. I left this page for 3 months. Come back and this article is still having problems. --\\\'\\\'Woohookitty\\\'\\\' 07:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
RuneScape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' - It was semi-protected not so long ago, and with the removal of protection, returns a storm of vandalism, maybe it\\\'s the highly edited position that attracts the idiots, but the ratio of worthwhile edits to vandallism and reverts is now on the floor! Ace of Risk 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Buu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested to enforce a cool-down for Wiki-star (talk · contribs), who is fresh off a short block for 3RR. User has immediately taken to reverting page as before, and repeatedly requests to be permabanned. Isopropyl 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- In a case like this, protection isn\\\'t the answer. I\\\'d take this up at the administrator\\\'s noticeboard. Protecting an article because of just one user isn\\\'t a good idea. Better to just have the user blocked. --\\\'\\\'Woohookitty\\\'\\\' 07:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Opus Dei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' requested due to persistant vandalism , , by anonymous IP-user 58.160.19x.xxx, who has been warned repeatedly , , . For making false edit summaries and using them for unproven defamatory claims this user should be blocked. As this is ineffective due to changing IP numbers, at least the vandalised page should be protected. Since this article currently is under mediation, contributing editors have better use for their time than constantly to revert vandalism. --Túrelio 09:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. Might I also add that the article is \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' long; someone might want to think about splitting it up a bit. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal rapid transit/UniModal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page has been protected for 1 and a half months and is now obsolete. The page was protected because of a dispute as to whether it should be wiped and redirected, or not. Now the page has been cleaned up and the protected page should redirect to it. Therefore I request that this page hould be unprotected so it may redirect to a more appropriate (and specific) article. Fresheneesz 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotected\\\'\\\'\\\'. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I request that the current status of full protection be reversed to semi-protection, because things have calmed down. Editorius 23:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I am requesting unprotection for editing, that is to add new material.84.64.58.164 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep it protected and do \\\'\\\'\\\'NOT\\\'\\\'\\\' unprotect it. The changes suggested by Editorius are not acceptable. --- Faisal 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unprotected by Dbachmann.\\\'\\\'\\\'Voice-of-All\\\'\\\'\\\' 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dbachmann himself was involved in edits of Muhammad article. He is also taking sides for example. How can an editor who is taking side can unprotect it? He has made several edits since last unprotection was lifted. That means if I am an administrator then I can also unprotect when I feel like editing an article? I would like if administrator who had no interest in the article would have taken the unprotection decision. This is not a nice thing happened here. --- Faisal 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unprotected by Dbachmann.\\\'\\\'\\\'Voice-of-All\\\'\\\'\\\' 09:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep it protected and do \\\'\\\'\\\'NOT\\\'\\\'\\\' unprotect it. The changes suggested by Editorius are not acceptable. --- Faisal 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Israeli apartheid (epithet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1) Move back to Israeli apartheid (phrase) which was the article\\\'s name until shortly before protection anmd was also the name under which the article survived an AFD. Political epithet is a POV description that assumes bad faith by people using the phrase (ie people like Desmond Tutu) when many who use the phrase do so as a means of comparison rather than insult. 2) Similarly, change the first paragraph to a more neutral form. Please change to:
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Israeli apartheid\\\'\\\'\\\' (or calling Israel an apartheid state) is a controversial phrase used by some critics to describe the country\\\'s policies towards the Palestinian and Israeli Arab populations. Critics of the phrase see it as a political epithet and do not consider Israel\\\'s practices to be comparable to the actions of the apartheid-era South African government towards its Black and mixed-race populations, and regard the phrase as misleading polemic.
See Talk:Israeli apartheid (epithet) Homey 23:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I will repond to this request at the talk page as I protected it and might start mediating on that page . -- Kim van der Linde 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please undo this move. The title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a \\\"phrase\\\" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). This is similar to Fascism (epithet). A rename request doesn\\\'t even belong here. ←Humus sapiens 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Most of teh discussion is at the talk page, I think it is better to continue there. -- Kim van der Linde 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Parenthetical phrases after the main title of a Misplaced Pages article are used to disambiguate articles from other things with the same name. They \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' be used to add a political \\\'\\\'comment\\\'\\\' to a title. Bearcat 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please undo this move. The title is a pejorative political epithet. To call it a \\\"phrase\\\" is to give it legitimacy (which would be wrong per NPOV). This is similar to Fascism (epithet). A rename request doesn\\\'t even belong here. ←Humus sapiens 06:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Samuel Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. An article about a musician was deleted and this was protected. But this is also the name of a historical person (see The Years of the Life of Samuel Lane, 1718-1806 : A New Hampshire Man and His World), who seems notable. There\\\'s now a link to him from Stratham, New Hampshire and I would like it to be a redlink, so that anybody can easily create an article (I\\\'m hoping somebody else will, but I might myself). --Rob 20:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds alright to me. It was protected way back in January; I\\\'m sure User:Spamdaddy has found better things to do now. Consider it deleted. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Unprotection\\\'\\\'\\\'. As per King of Hearts\\\'s suggestion, please unprotect, since the article is probably now less prone to vandalism, given that his death is no longer breaking news. Mistamagic28 17:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I\\\'ve unprotected this since it is linked from the main page. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Muswellbrook, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Vandalised several times over the last 2 weeks by what looks like kids of the area. Semi protection will probably only be needed for less than a month, until they get tired of trying. Anubis1975 08:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not enough to protect currently. Watchlist, revert, and warn as you see it--I will do the same. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, but how do you warn people when they are not registered and have a different IP address each time? Anubis1975 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protection\\\'\\\'\\\' constantly link spammed. Computerjoe\\\'s talk 06:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Semi-protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Mail-order bride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
\\\'\\\'\\\'Full protection\\\'\\\'\\\'. Month-long edit war is tiresome. I\\\'m hoping a cooling off will yield either compromise or the filing of a pending RfC. --William Pietri 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- \\\'\\\'\\\'Protected\\\'\\\'\\\'. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)