Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 3 May 2007 (→Current requests for protection: Semi protected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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


    Current requests for protection

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

    Semi-protection. At least two IPs have removed the AfD. I suppose we could block all of Peru from editing the page, but that might prevent a possible improvement. (I'm an admin, but {{db-nn}} and {{afd1}} seem like enough actions for one person on one article. Semi-protection myself might be overdoing it.} — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected with an expiry of 24 hours, that should sort it, there's too many IP's/new users to warrent simply blocking or warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Anonymous user (in that he's an IP address; he's self-identified as 'Armando M. Fernandez') keeps changing the page to accuse people of contributing to the support of plagiarism; he holds a patent on what we think of as the mousepad today, and he's incredibly ticked off that people might mention that someone invented a mousetray a decade earlier (he doesn't quite seem to understand that plagiarism has to happen after). Anyway, his IP address changes pretty regularly, but he doesn't have an account and all he does is edit this page, so semi-protecting it will be easier than blocking him by IP. --Thespian 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to IP disruption. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Continued vandalism and blanking over the past few days. Anthony Rupert 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anonymous user several times blanket changing back to some old version (taking away formatting and sources also), despite current version being accepted by several registered users and anonymous people and rejected only by him/her. I offered twice to talk about possible changes and worries on discussion page, but (s)he changed back to old version anyway.Methodius 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not true. The previous version was replaced by biased version with unreliable sources per WP:RS. I just returned it and put real sources (courte desicions and courte reports etc). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.34.238 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Whichever administrator sees this, just look for youself.--Methodius 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, just compare those two versions and sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.34.238 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, by ip addresses and new editors Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - there hasn't been enough recent activity. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Under attack yet again by "You-Gay-Hoe" morons hiding behind anonymous accounts. JuJube 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected with an expiry of 1 month. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Random vandalism, manily by IPs. Ashura96 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Remove spam filter protection. Urgent. -- RHaworth 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    that would dfeat the purpose of the page! The Placebo Effect 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Maybe whatever you're trying to add is on the spam blacklist? You'd have to talk to Eagle 101 or someone like that, then... And PE, RHaworth is an admin, he already knows that :) – Rianaऋ 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested removal of spam filter protection only. OK I was asking in the wrong place. Thanks Riana for pointing me to user:Eagle 101. -- RHaworth 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The admin has no business keeping the page locked. It´s been so since March. User:Predisposed 07:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the protecting admin, has good reasons for protecting the page. I recommend not unprotecting it. --Iamunknown 08:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined Sockpuppet request. – Rianaऋ 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war seems to be over and discussion has ceased--Sefringle 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected OK, let's give it a go. – Rianaऋ 09:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

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

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

    Requesting the placement of template:sockpuppeteer on this page per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. John254 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like unnecessary branding, to me. What is the predicted benefit of such an action? Dmcdevit·t 23:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The template would assist users in identifying new sockpuppets of ChrisGriswold. John254 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined: ChrisGriswold has stated that he is concerned of troubles that may result in using his real name as his username, which is a very legitimate concern. While his recent sockpuppetry is clearly unacceptable, the open ArbCom request will decide what course to take in this incident; branding him with this template would only cause problems. Krimpet (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the replacement of the language "unreferenced negative" with "unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial" for consistency with the provisions of WP:BLP regarding the removal of unreferenced information, and to avoid misunderstandings with users who do not regard the unreferenced information they are adding to articles as negative. John254 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. – Steel 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent edit war was begun due to questions about whether or not Scientology actually published or referenced a forged Naval service document when describing L. Ron Hubbard's career in the US Navy. I have found references that current Scientology webpages are still using the document. I don't know if the block should be lifted yet, so instead I'm asking that the references be added by an uninvolved sysop. To make this as easy as possible for anyone who wishes to help, here is a link to what I want to change: L. Ron Hubbard#After the war. And this is what I'd like replaced: [citation needed] tag with <ref>Description of Hubbard's service/awards from news.scientology.org as a rebuttal to a Boston Herald article: [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page10fb.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11.htm] [http://news.scientology.org/mag/boston/page11a.htm]</ref> minus the nowiki tags of course. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 04:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined That citation does not directly support the claim He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation" as the claim is being presented by the author, nor Hubbard, and as it is primarily an attack on Joseph Mallia, including that reference would not be conducive to maintaining a neutral POV on the article. —dgiestc 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have missed what Joseph Mallia was writing about. He was writing about the truth of Hubbard's claims to have been a "war hero", and the site referenced is refuting the claims made by Mallia. In doing this they refer to a fake document indicating Hubbard won 21 awards including a Purple Heart with "palm".

    The real form in question was made public after a FOIA request and is very different than the one referenced by the CoS site. Since the links show clearly what the CoS claims, the two accounts should both be discussed for the sake of NPOV. Anynobody 06:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He also claimed to have received 21 medals and awards, including a Purple Heart and a "Unit Citation"

    Also the above statement was not Mallia's statement it was whichever editor here that wrote it:

    1. Malia writes article
    2. CoS rebuts Malia stating Hubbard earned 21 awards [1]
    3. Real naval record comes out: [2]
    4. While trying to post both records (Navy and CoS) I am asked to show that the CoS actually used the source it did, see: [3].

    You seem to think it was Malia who said Hubbard won 21 awards, it's the other way around. Anynobody 08:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-read my response. My reading comprehension is fine. If you want to make this change, propose it on the talk page, gain the consensus of other editors, and then make a new request here. —dgiestc 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of clarity, at this point I'm not saying you have to make the change. However your response does not acknowledge any of the other sources cited above by me or those already referenced in the article itself. The links I added here, that you say is an attack on Malia, are claims made by Hubbard's biographer that he earned 21 medals according to this document: [4]. Since the biographer/CoS are citing the above document, it represents what they maintain Hubbard's war record was. Now that the Navy version has come out, and it's different, both versions should be on the article for readers to judge for themselves. Again you don't have to make the change, but please explain your original answer because saying it would be POV and doesn't support the contention seems to indicate either you or I may not understand all the relevant information. Anynobody 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support addition of citation
    • Anynobody seems to have spelled this out very well, with reputable secondary sourced material. Smee 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • It's a fine source for representing Scientology's position, but it's neither written by nor quoting Hubbard, which is the claim Anynobody has proposed it be added as a citation for. It can certainly be used as a citation for Scientology's claims, just not for claims ascribed to Hubbard personally. —dgiestc 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the place to request it, but... I'm looking for an extremely specific edit: One of the headers reads: "Shadow Shuriken Imitation Technique." It was actually changed to that from "Shuriken Shadow Imitation Technique" here, immediately before the dispute took place, and nobody caught it until after the full-protect. Several pages link directly to that header, so having the wrong header for an entire week will mess that up. A desire for this edit is expressed at the bottom of Talk:List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Summoning: Impure World Resurrection, though nobody has really brought up requesting a protected-page edit. You Can't See Me! 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined - this article was fully-protected only yesterday. It's important to discuss/notify other editors of your requested changes. Can you request this on the article's talk page with {{Editprotected}}, please? - Alison☺ 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting the correction of the following typographical errors:

    invstigate => investigate

    soly => solely

    Thanks. John254 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done -- zzuuzz(talk) 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Request an edit as per the section "Bias" on the articles talk page. The dispute that required the protection should be largely resolved by the edit proposed as it has been agreed to by one of the disputing parties (and by one other editor on my own talk page) and not replied to by the opposing party (nor opposed by any other editor) since the compromise was suggested on 15 April.
    2. The article page has a semi protected tag but is actually fully protected. This should be corrected by either making the page semi protected or changing the tag. Cheers Wayne 04:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done - Phaedriel - 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fulfilled/denied requests

    full protection: often used template. There is a test version and a talk page to test and discuss changes to be made. -- User:Docu

    Declined as there appears to be a disagreement as to how the template should look. Docu reverted to his/her desired version, then requested full protection. - auburnpilot talk 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your position, but it's not a matter of looks. Someone introduced changes that didn't display the coordinates correctly and then refused to fix it. -- User:Docu


    semi-protection an anonymous users reverts to claims which are not from academic sources or he totally misunderstands the source. We have try to have a discussion, but he keeps reverting back. The issue is over that there is no Armenian cognate for the Indo-Iranian term Aryan. Azalea pomp 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    semi-protection - anonymous user continually reverts correct information (second book published) to wrong information (third book published). Two separate sources are cited for verification of book being second one in series published. Their excuse is: "That's how Barnes and Noble sells it"(!) Melos Antropon 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. Semi-protection should not be used for content disputes with IP addresses. Sean William 03:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection. Multiple IP vandalism --Jklamo 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sean William 03:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Ok, you might think that indefinite semi-protection is unnecessary, but I will state three reasons why I believe it to be the best thing for Ronald Reagan. First off, we were recently allowed two weeks of semi-preotection, which (for a major editor of the article, like me) were heaven, and it was a wonderful opportunity to improve Reagan's article for the better. Reason number two: the semi-protection expired yesterday, in which 6 different IP users made little and pointless edits that should be made in the sandbox, and two edits were considered vandalim and were reverted. This is nothing comapred to before the article was granted semi-protection in the first place. The meaningless edits consisted of "tests" by IPs, such as adding this: "David Allen Fox of Gainesville, Georgia wants to marry Nancy Reagan". The user later reverted his/her own edit, but you get the point. With indefinite semi-protection, this won't have to be worried about. Third, Reagan is a controversial figure in American politics (maybe not like Richard Nixon, an indefinite semi-protected article, but there are people who just dont like him), and I have experienced mean edits on the page, and mean edits directed toward me on my user page, all by IP users (to remain secret), just because I was editing Reagan's article for the better (I have been awarded two barnstars for my work on Reagan). Indefinite semi-protection would stop those users from ever vandalizing an already majorly vandalized page. I think I have now outlined my case for semi-protection, and please consider granting it, for it would be a huge help. If you check out the history on Reagan's page, you will know what I'm talking about, and if you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Again, thanks. --Happyme22 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • You do realize that if the article is fully protected then all users who are not admins will not be able to edit the article? That would include yourself not being able to edit the article. I recommend a semi-protect, since the article has no content conflicts just vandalism edits. The "tests" would be blocked by a semi-protect. Michael Greiner 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    O I'm sorry. I'm not completley savvy and up to date on all these protection policy things, so an indefinite semi-protection would be the best thing. Please consider granting it. Happyme22 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined. Not enough activity. I suggest you watchlist it for a longer time, then report it when it gets too hot. bibliomaniac15 03:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There's no edit war, no vandalism, no wikipedia policy violations. Therefore, the protection of this page violates WP:PROT and it should be unprotected. --Rodzilla (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected the article so I won't decline this request. The vandal edits have been deleted and consisted of repeated attempts to add a recently leaked HD-DVD decryption key to the article. It remains I high target for such vandalism in the future (which may have legal consequences- the Foundation has been contacted for clarification). I strongly recommend that this request be denied. WjBscribe 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true, there was a lot of vandalism. What needs to happen is to change to sproctect--Cerejota 07:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected I agree that it can be downgraded to semi protection. WjBscribe 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the page's history and didn't see any vandalism...where is it? --Rodzilla (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Oversight. Krimpet (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    also Universal v. Reimerdes I note that the DVD codes were posted there tonight. That's a potential WP:OFFICE issue - Alison ☺ 08:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting a string of letters and numbers which are relevant to the article is not vandalism. This article must be unprotected and the relevant content allowed to appear in the article. This is plain censorship. Madder 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotection will do for now. Voice-of-All 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the purpose of semiprotection? Madder 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done in protecting the page for a couple of days. I recommend a general philosophy of relaxation and cutting each other a lot of slack on such stuff.  :-) --Jimbo Wales 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely harm has been done if Wikipedia has to censor a few random letters and numbers? Where has free speech gone? This censorship is shameful. The article must be unprotected and the code published, just as it has been done on websites such as Digg. Madder 00:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If this code is "a few random letters and numbers", then why are you so eager to keep it in the article? Sean William 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, this content is relevant to the article. There is no reason for removing it. Madder 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that there is: potential legal danger. --Iamunknown 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerous websites including Digg have taken the risk of publishing the code in the name of protecting freedom of speech. That the Wikipedia administrators do not seem to care about freedom of speech is both disappointing and dangerous. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia which publish content that has not appeared in other media outlets, eg. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. This article should be no different. Wikipedia must publish the code. Madder 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, websites have already taken down references to the code. To compare to Wikipedia to Digg.com and Slashdot is irrelevant: Wikepedia is an encyclopedia. --Iamunknown 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already said twice before, this content is relevant to the article and therefore must be included. That is what an encyclopaedia article has - content that is relevant. This censorship is totally unacceptable. This article must be unprotected and the code included immediately. Madder 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lulz, since when do we include illegal content just because its relevant? Um, never. --Iamunknown 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... no. It may be illegal to include it. Illegal information can not be inluded just because it is relevant. -Amarkov moo! 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's illegal then why do 321,000 websites (according to Google) print this so-called 'illegal' information. There is nothing illegal about a few hexadecimal numbers. Furthermore, a billion other things "may" be illegal too. Hey, why not just blank the whole of Wikipedia - just to play it safe in case it "may" be illegal too? This is pure censorship and an attack on freedom of speech. The code must be included in the article immediately. Madder 00:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, we can wait a few days for this whole thing to die down, and add the number in with correct citations from reliable sources etc. Right now the vandalism flood of folks trying to insert this number is a bit on the bad side. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got the sources though: the Feb 11 DOOM9 forum posting[5] and the Feb 15 AACSLA press[6] release acknowledging the correctness of the key. If the key was published the vandalism would go away so that is a circular argument. Jimbo has said give it time (above) and Bastique has said "The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time." My reading of the situation is that there are no real barriers to publication in that there is a perceived legal risk by some and those carrying the perceived risk (the Foundation) don't appear to be worried. The real reason seems to be that the Wikipedia community has yet to reach a consensus (which would gel with Jimbo's give it time response). I'm fine with that, that we should be nice to each other, not belt each other into submission and that some have genuine concerns. Having said that those holding out need to be challenging themselves and examining the reasons for their position (and not get defensive if their reasons are challenged by others ;-) ). John Dalton 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    full protection for 1 week, Full protection: Vandalism, Vandalism by Flonto. PxMa 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined -Flonto appears not to be vandalising the article but adding sources to it, as you recommended [7]. WjBscribe 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protection +expiry 1 week, Semi-protection: Vandalism, PxMa 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect - it took me about five minutes to find a non-vandalized version of this article. Non-stop IP vandalism definitely warrants semi-protection - just look at the history. Yonatan talk 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. WjBscribe 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, general homophobic slurs, it seems to be vandalised every time I look at the article. Red Fiona 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I agree- we can't have these sort of comments slipping through the net on a relatively unwatched biography of a living person. WjBscribe 00:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Red Fiona 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism. Michael Greiner 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for one week, as it's not that much for now. bibliomaniac15 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protect due to vandalism implying the actors perform fellatio. WAVY 10 23:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 weeks. – Rianaऋ 23:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi-protect. Anon vandalism began as soon as protection expired, has been protected 9 previous times. Please consider an additional month. Article in need of revision per talk page. Legis Nuntius 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi repeated personal attacks against living people using the forums. --Iamunknown 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected[8] by Riana. Cbrown1023 talk 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to you both. --Iamunknown 23:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    semi or full This should give a good idea of what's going on. In 1927 Azerbaijan was in the USSR. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 5 days, which is hopefully enough time to generate some sort of peaceful discussion on the talk page. – Rianaऋ 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=127966122"