Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:56, 3 February 2008

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP 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. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection 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

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.

Chamillionaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary semi-protection due to daily IP vandalism on a biographical article about a living person. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Lots of IP vandalism. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Footballfan190 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Yes, my talk page has been attacked. Although one time and it being on my talk page, I am so concered about my user page getting hit also. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Just post back here if you want it lifted. Spebi 06:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.226.208.35 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

semi-protection Vandalism, by blocked IP Address of own user page, unrelated to an unblock request.  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 06:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect One week. Waves of anonymous POV editing in anticipation of the Dutch broadcast of Joran van der Sloot's "confession" Sunday night, and it will only get worse after the broadcast. Remember that we treat this as a BLP.Kww (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. If the vandalism persists then the article can be semi-protected later. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ziti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Massive amount of recent vandalism. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Keilana| 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Brannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, See talk page regarding issue of Jay Brannan wanting this page deleted, him blanking it and the talk page, several IPs removing valid sourced content..- ✰ALLSTAR✰ 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for one week. - Philippe | Talk 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Itu Aba Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary full protection Dispute, Looks like an edit-war regarding the name and nationality of an island (think Liancourt Rocks). Attempts to encourage users to use the talk page have fallen on deaf ears..shoy 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. east.718 at 03:42, February 3, 2008

The Return of the Spice Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Due to cancellation of tour dates, there will probably be a increase in inaccurate information added and vandalism. WestJet (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - pages aren't protected preemptively, and there isn't enough recent vandalism. east.718 at 02:54, February 3, 2008

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

Before 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.

VR Troopers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Un-protect No need to protect anymore due to the fact that the codenamed "Saban Vandal" has stopped his drivel...Invisible Noise (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on the talk page of Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Jmlk17 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at Big Bad Beetleborgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and you'll see he's still around.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting removal of semi protection as it's been there since November, 2007, with no discussion of it's need on any recent archive. Original reason cited was heavy IP vandalism. It was not indicated if this was brief or continued and there is no further information on the problem available. It is generally considered bad form to leave an article semi-protected for long periods of time, without continued cause. i kan reed (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - already tried twice, didn't work. east.718 at 03:43, February 3, 2008

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

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 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.

Memphis, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Compulsive deletion, and tag-teaming, deliberate destruction of the entry regarding David Saks as the composer of the only "Official Songs of Memphis" has become personal with a problematic user, Jersyko, who compulsively, and with somewhat seditious and incitive or rabble-rousing fashion, as noted by editing comments, removes entries pertaining to Mr. Saks' work. User Jersyko, within the last two years, had one user, Reneec, inexecusably banned because of her support of David Saks and, in paranoid fashion, removed personal information about himself as a law student at the University of Memphis while falsely alleging that the user had threatened him with bodily harm. "One Last Bridge," written by native Memphian, composer and pianist David Saks, was adopted and proclaimed in unanimous resolution (11-0) by the Memphis City Council as Memphis' Official Song of 1990. His composition, "In Memphis" , was adopted as an Official Song of Memphis, the following year in City Council session, in 1991. These are the only two musical compositions ever adopted as Official Songs of Memphis. The record of the Memphis City Council has been reviewed, confirmed many times, is notable and well documented. Refer to the archives for additional information. The recognition of David Saks was an honor presented to him that was of a distinctly greater degree than is commonly the nature of the Memphis City Council. It was a tangible symbol signifying the approval of this gentlemans' contributions to the community. The compulsive deletion, sabotage and tag-teaming of this entry by a few has become personal and vicious. Any attempt to suppress the input of any entry without an account is ludicrous, derisory and prejudicial. Mr. Saks deserves to be recognized honorably within the article. Memphians in Support of David Saks (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection would not help fulfill the request because even the highest level page protection still allows administrators to edit. The reason for protection is because of improper behavior by Jersyko (per the above request). Jersyko is an administrator so page protection would allow only Jersyko to edit, which would exacerbate the problem that User:Memphians in Support of David Saks reports. Declined Resubmit or add clarification if you believe the above analysis is incorrect. Consider dispute resolution for content dispute? Archtransit (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This request was made by a sock of an indef blocked user User:Reneec evading his block. The user was blocked for, in part, a legal threat directed at me. This comment should be stricken and request ignored. FWIW, the Memphis article is currently semi-protected solely because of this user's persistent editing in violation of his block (and consensus, I might add) through various non-static IPs. · jersyko talk 20:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the proper process. Calling people sock just incites anger and prolongs edit warring. If the new user has made no legal threat, they should not be blocked for making legal threats or being a sock of a person who made a legal threat. Even if it is the same person, they may be using their right to vanish and return with no legal threats made. Why not begin dispute resolution to discuss who is David Saks? I don't know who he is except that there is a composer by that name according to Google. Archtransit (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, this is a sock of an indef blocked user, and that is 100% clear. For reference, feel free to ask User:Vary or User:Dozenist, or anyone who participated in the David Saks AFD or the old discuss at the Memphis talk page. This user was indef blocked for a legal threat, among other things. I don't participate in dispute resolution with people who are indef blocked for legal threats. Thanks. · jersyko talk 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

===={{la

NCAA Division I-A national football championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the first paragraph of the "Rankings Overview" section there are several errors. It states "The NCAA guide lists 340 national championship selections in 137 seasons, an average of between two and three selections every year ever. On that list, Notre Dame is credited with 21 championships, Oklahoma and USC with 17, Alabama and Michigan with 16, Ohio State with 13, Nebraska and Pittsburgh with 11--an amount exceeding claims by almost any university."

Referencing the actual ncaa site for Past Division 1 Football National Champions (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) one can verify for themselves that Notre Dame is credited with 21, Alabama with 17, USC with 17, Oklahoma with 16, Michigan with 15, Ohio State with 14, Nebraska with 12 and Pittsburgh with 11.

In addition, the "Rankings Overview" section cites the College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW)(http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/index.php) as a reference for determining "the most acceptable selectors" and determining the national champions. However, it goes on to list the Dickinson System, International News Service, Football Writers Association of America and the Harris Interactive Poll as acceptable selectors. The CFDW does not recognize these selectors in determining their national champions. In addition, this section also lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953, the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1924-1953 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1982. The CFDW on the other hand only lists the National Championship Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1869-1892, the College Football Researchers Association as acceptable selectors from 1919-1935 and the Helms Athletic Foundation as acceptable selectors from 1883-1935. Thus the CFDW does not recognize Notre Dame as champions in 1938, Alabama as champions in 1945, USC as champions in 1939 and Oklahoma as champions in 1953 and 1978.

So according to the CFDW, in the "Most national championship" section, Notre Dame should have 12 recognized titles, Alabama should have 11 recognized titles (the CFDW includes 1934), USC should have 10 recognized titles and Oklahoma should have 7 recognized titles. This would further change the "Most Poll Era National Championships" sections by giving Notre Dame - 9, Oklahoma - 7, USC - 7, and Alabama - 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cson37 (talk • contribs)

Unprotected - go forth and make the edits your own way. :-) east.718 at 08:12, February 1, 2008

British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Entry for the 'British National Party' section 1.6 entitled '2007 split' is outdated. The group referred to as 'RealBNP' has become an internal democratic pressure group called 'Voice of Change'. This drive for democratic change to the party's constitution has growing support among the BNPs grassroots membership, and I would like to add this update plus a link to the Voice of Change pressure group into the British National Party's entry section 1.6.

Web Refs: http://www.voiceofchange.org.uk/index.php http://enoughisenoughnick.blogspot.com/

{} chris@chrishill.freeserve.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.27.44 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined This type of edit would require independent reliable sources. You might want to mention it on the article's talk page to gather consensus. -- zzuuzz 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per request here. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Final reversion by Lawrence Cohen on 22 January was minutes before page was protected during edit war. Eschoir returned from 24 hour block for edit warring that morning and straightaway started edit war again. This time he recruited Lawrence Cohen from WP:RFAR. As shown on talk page final revert by Lawrence Cohen is not supported by consensus or by Misplaced Pages policy. Please restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined - see this for more information why. east.718 at 22:20, January 25, 2008

Al-Qaeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article on al-Qaeda: I'd like to request that a separate level-2 heading be created to discuss the essential issue of al-Qaeda's numbers. Nowhere in the article, as currently protected, is there a systematic discussion of the number of operatives in the organization. From the text of the article as it currently stands, al-Qaeda could include tens of millions of operatives, or less than fifty. This needless, dangerous ambiguity to the article ought to be addressed and corrected forthwith. --TallulahBelle (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined It needs to be addressed by editors on the talk page then. After consensus has been achieved, then you request an edit. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rodimus The F22 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to request that someone remove the M1 Abrams message at the top, WP:DENY. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined It doesn't have anything to do with DENY from what I can see. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A rather unorthodox request. An arbitrator has protected this page, but left a conditional in her edit summary. For details, see here. The current "pp-dispute" tag at the top of the talk page tells people to come here to request unprotection. What I would like is for an uninvolved administrator to change that link (you may need to substitute the template) to point to User talk:FloNight#Agreement regarding Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision instead. This will allow any uninvolved editors passing by, and unaware of the situation, to go to the right place to ask for page unprotection. Carcharoth (talk) Done ~ Riana ⁂ 08:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this is the right place for this request, but nowhere else seems as appropriate. I'd like to request that Medicine Show be (re?)created as a redirect to Medicine show, but not (necessarily) unprotected. Note also the existence of Medicine Show (album). I found the SALT tag when looking for the Big Audio Dynamite single, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done Mr.Z-man 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

World Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Same guys using different IPs to add incorrect information. Has been asked to show references but refuses to even go to Talk page. DanteAgusta (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--JForget 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You very much--DanteAgusta (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:82.40.254.161 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi protect. Repeated editor abuse by blocked User. Corvus cornix_talk 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cars (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protect a lot of anon vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Jmlk17 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dane Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Due to the subjects popularity - many critics and detractors, there seems to be some rampant anon vandalism - especially in just the last few days. Semi-protect might be in order for a cool down period. .Wisdom89 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

King_of_Mann#Pretender‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection, edit war. I am David Howe, the subject of the entry. As with my BLP that I did not create and which CarbonLifeForm nominated for deletion and achieved such moving it to the King of Mann page, CarbonLifeForm seems to still be objecting to a NPOV regarding material about me. I have little doubt that this will be a rehash of the BLP page with all the same editors. I have asked for assistance from Misplaced Pages with this page and biographical information about me via e-mail, first through my Lord Advocate's office on 1/24/08 and again myself via e-mail today. My requests having yet received a response, I have taken the issue of editing for accuracy in to my own hands. I'd prefer no Misplaced Pages involvement. Yet, because of the obvious agenda to project a negative point of view by this editor and others as represented based on their history, as the subject of the biographical information and if I understand the policy correctly, I have the right to edit this information for accuracy. I'm requesting no more hijacking and presenting negative points of view which have repeatedly violated Misplaced Pages's policies. If this can not be achieved then any reference of me should be removed completely from Misplaced Pages.--Kingofmann (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - Content dispute - minor amount of reverting. No reason to protect. Black Kite 19:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask you to reconsider. This will be an issue in the coming days. It may seem minor to you now, particularly if you have no reference to the recent past and the previous biography dispute about me. I can tell you that this is only going to continue. I do not have the time nor interest to be personally involved so I am asking you to please reconsider given the recent history and disputes on Misplaced Pages that I have had with my biographical information and editors promoting a negative point of view.--Kingofmann (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: There doesn't appear to be any edit warring. Have you supplied the wrong article in the header? Rudget. 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor CarbonLifeForm that I was seeking page protection from has now just completely deleted the section about my biography which had previousl been actively editing to his negative point of view. I'm not sure what Misplaced Pages would call that. Perhaps vandalism? I object to an editor promoting his biased point of view editing about me, so he just simple deletes the whole thing. That is rather amusing. Not that I care about the deletion much. Based on Misplaced Pages's inability to police it's negative-agenda driven editors and rampant vandals, this is probably the best outcome.--Kingofmann (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Does a TV Commercial‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection, edit war. @pple complain 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

As a bystander, I would suggest blocking @pple for edit warring instead of protecting the page... consensus on talk page for the article is clearly in favor of the redirect.Kww (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Which consensus? Majority vote? I wonder. Blocking me for edit warring per what policy? @pple complain 17:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit war between apple AND ThuranX (kww of course showing bias above) appears to have subsided. Once the injunction is approved you guys won't be able to touch it anyway. But since I'm loosely involved in the arbcom case, I won't act on the request. Wizardman 17:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined - As Wizardman says, the edit warring has subsided. Protection does not appear to be necessary at this time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Requesting full protection due to persistent vandalism by an indefinitely blocked user. John254 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

unprotection , This has been protected for months and has not seen much vandalism. . Marlith (Talk)  06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Done --Hdt83 06:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese New Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection' Very high multiple IP and new user vandalism. I requested this one be protected yesterday, and it was declined. Since then, an additional 15 or so edits have been made, either vandalism or revertion. If you check the page history, you will see that the last few days have seen huge amounts of vandalism. Whilst it is quiet there at the moment (last vandalism reversion was 2 hours ago, I suspect it will start up again later today. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

History of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - High levels (more than once a day) of vandalism from IP addresses. Oidia (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget. 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wilt Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Recently lot of vandalism by a flurry of anon sockpuppets of permanently banned user User:TyrusThomas4lyf with the sole intention to pour hate on that player. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Jmlk17 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection. Looks like another potential battleground on the image and talk page regarding the age old issue of whether Misplaced Pages should allow images of the Prophet Mohammed. Full protection requested, to avoid bias (most anon IP posts oppose the use of such images, so semi-protection would serve only to exacerbate the issue). Related policies: WP:CENSOR. Coldmachine 09:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Jmlk17 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. An unregistered user with changing IPs is deleting large chunks of text in an edit war. Some time to resolve disputes on the talk page would help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected Jmlk17 10:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wachovia Spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection. A user (User:Paul Harald Kaspar) has kept on deleting relevant info in the article, saying the small bit of info there is about wrestling is not necessary. Whammies Were Here 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined I believe it is up for mediation at this time. Jmlk17 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page was semi-protected for IP vandalism, but this is not an article that gets continual vandalism. It has been protected long enough. Most of the times this page is protected, there actually is not too much vandalism, but the last time had enough. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected Jmlk17 09:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)