Misplaced Pages

:Requests for page protection - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 4 August 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:44, 4 August 2005 by Silverback (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

This page is for requesting that a page or image be protected or unprotected.

If you would like to request a page be protected or unprotected, please list it (and the date) at the top of the current requests section below, with the reason that it needs protecting or unprotecting. Before you do so, however, consult Misplaced Pages:Protection policy for details on the purpose of protecting pages and the guidelines concerning page protection.

Only consider protection as an option that is necessary in order to resolve your problem and that the only solution that will assist in the solution of the problem is protection. Sometimes the problem will go away after a week or so.

After a page has been protected, it is listed on Misplaced Pages:Protected page with a short description indicating why it was protected. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article. This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

When submitting a request for page unprotection, you may want to consider the reason given for protection at Misplaced Pages:Protected page (or lack thereof).

Administrators: When you have fulfiled or rejected a request, please note your actions (or reasons for not acting) and move the request to the old requests section at the bottom of the page.


Current requests

Please place new requests at the top.

Vampire fiction

user called DreamGuy is constantly trying to move a section from the vampire article tro this section w ithout consensus. please udo his changes and protect the article. id undo his changes myself, but im sick of editwarring, and im trying very hard to be a good 1rr person. thank you Gabrielsimon 06:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Err, actually the section in question from the Vampire article was already moved and not currently present, and the other article is already locked so the section he is talking about can;t be moved there. And the discussion is clearly showing consensus for the section's move anyway, with at least four editors in favor and only Gabriel (undergoing RfC for extensive POV editing) and a brand new user created today who talks like the same guy who was blocked from the page and Misplaced Pages in general twice for sockpuppeting, etc. But then Gabriel is currently trying to move movies and televisions shows off the fiction page so perhaps a lock is in order anyway until the sock can be cleaned out and Gabriel gets banne for the 3RR violation he made today. DreamGuy 06:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

you never got consensus to do any such move, and you only said you did while i was blocked. a blockl which you got me to accidentally undergo by using insulting baiting edit sumamries. and the RFC is not becasue of that, I suggested Vampire Fiction be merged with Vampire, yes, but tjhat has nothing to do with yuor excessive reverting of what multiple editors disagree with. please stop crudsading. to admins, please undo his lone ranger-esque changes and protect the page. thank you. Gabrielsimon 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you're both in favor of protection? SlimVirgin 06:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Please unprotect the ID page, there was no request for protection, and have been no significant revert wars. Edit summaries have been good and discussion, while lively has been civil. -- thanx, --Silverback 05:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I protected this because there was a revert war today and an apparent mass deletion of material by Silverback, which two editors objected to. I'd like to keep it protected so that a consensus can be reached on the talk page. SlimVirgin 05:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Most of the material deleted was duplicative of material on related pages. What happened on this page hardly qualifies as a revert war. Those two editors that "objected", did not request protection and are still communicating on the discussion page. Try to go someplace where you are really needed.--Silverback 06:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
If the other editors want me to unlock it, I will, but what I saw was a revert war. SlimVirgin 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The talk page shows complaints on both sides about the reverting, including from you. SlimVirgin 06:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Since when are reverts not allowed? They are part of the dialogue. You should reserve page protection for vandalism and intransigent revert wars.--Silverback 06:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
"Since when are reverts not allowed? ... You should reserve page protection for... revert wars." - am I the only one who sees the comedic value in that statement? →Raul654 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully not many here get off on mocking like you do.--Silverback 06:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
User:Tnzkai has left wikipedia (see his user page). If User:FeloniousMonk goes on vacation you could be blocking the community for weeks. Why not remove this unrequested and unnecessary block?--Silverback 06:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Howard

The page has undergone some recent changes recently as the author decided to shut down the sites mentioned in the article. This page has been linked on a few online forums as a reference for the history of the comics and related incidents, and it's been consistently vandalized over the past couple days by anonymous IP addresses. Protecting it for a few days would probably cause most people to lose interest and we could resume editing afterwards. The article is far from complete in its current form and people have complained it may too be biased for the author, but in the short term that's preferrable to it getting vandalized, and discussion for improvements could just be put on the talk page.

User:Reub2000

An annonymous user (in the 65.182.172.* range) keeps on vandalising my user page with "Racist and professional asshole to the stars aka "Reuben Perelman"", and has done so 3 times. I'd like it protected as what it currently is. Reub2000 23:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

They appear to have gotten fed up with being told off for vandalism and gone away, so protection not needed atm. Thryduulf 00:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The user has a history of personal attacks againt me and several other editors who dared to disagree with him/her over the Italian Beef article. I doubt it's over. Reub2000 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Lifestyle anarchism

request that the last version by Heah be protected. User:chuck0 continues to revert to a npov version, and has failed to respond or discuss on the talk page. please see Talk:Lifestyle anarchism and User talk:chuck0 for background on the debate and citations. --Heah (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

This is the latest battle in the war over "BC" and "AD" vs. "BCE" and "CE". Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair

Igor Bogdanov himself is altering constantly this article by removing any fair allusion to the critics against his "work" and by adding fallacious references to acadamic support of his "work".

I suggest to protect the last unmodified version of this article.

He is currently doing the same thing on the french page "Igor et Grichka Bogdanoff".

A solution would be to block the IP range 82.123.178.0 - 82.123.178.255.--YBM 17:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sveasoft

James Ewing, owner of Sveasoft, has continued to linkspam Sveasoft's official site] on several WiFi-related pages, as well as editing the Sveasoft Wiki to remove any content that may be "detrimental" to his business. His main argument is that he removes links that violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, however:

  • He has tried to get Google to remove said links. Google found nothing wrong with the links, and subsequently did not comply.
  • He has tried to get WebDogPro to remove so-called "illegal" content. They never did, though the customer eventually cancelled his account. See this link: DMCA Copyright Violation Notice.

I for one do not approve of Sveasoft's business practices, but despite any former disputes with them I have tried to keep the Wiki article. Therefore, it is my suggestion to ban Sveasoft's IP range of 62.20.102.128/25: 

% Information related to '62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255'
inetnum:      62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255
netname:      SE-SVEASOFT
descr:        Sveasoft Utveckling AB
descr:        Wireless ISP
country:      se
admin-c:      JE730-RIPE
tech-c:       JE730-RIPE
status:       ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by:       TELIANET-LIR
source:       RIPE # Filtered

--Tokachu 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: An edit war appears to be starting. I've already reverted once, but I'd rather not fuel the fire. --Tokachu 00:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sveasoft&oldid=20160974 is the complete page containing correct information. The discussion page has details on why changes were made. This page should be set for page protection as of the revision that I posted the URL for. Kf4hzu 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Update: Changed URL to more recent revision Kf4hzu 03:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, Tokachu has edited my user information page (not my talk page) with links to FUD and threats. Kf4hzu 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I did not add any of the links, and there are no "threats". It should also be noted that Kf4hzu is an employee of Sveasoft. Refer to Talk:Sveasoft for the full discussion. --Tokachu 01:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kf4hzu&oldid=20146906 Saying the page will be set protected sounds like a threat to me. And those look like links. The history doesn't lie. Kf4hzu 02:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That's merely enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. --Tokachu 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

FurAffinity

Page is being repeatedly vandalized by one user (IP 65.33.200.199,) but vandalisms seem too low priority to request administrator intervention, unless I'm misinterpreting the "Dealing with Vandalism" page guidelines. 65.33.200.199 has vandalized the page a total of four times, causing two reverts to be made today alone. Requesting temporary protection just to force a cool-down period. Barring that, at least requesting admins to look into the matter and determine the appropriate action.

De La Salle - College of Saint Benilde

This articles has been edited by 202.69.161.135, adding irrelevant and wrong information to the article. --Circa 1900 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Currently tagged as a copyvio with no edits since 30 July. Protection not currently needed. Thryduulf 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Anus

Despite the fact that the referendum in the talk page, with 17 vs. 5 votes, asks to keep the controversial image, it keeps being deleted and reverted. --Army1987 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


Old requests / Completed requests

  • Only old requests that have been actioned or rejected should be in this section.
  • If you want to disagree with an administrators decision to protect or not protect you make a brief comment here.
  • Other discussion should take place on the talk page of the article concerned or on user talk pages.
  • Any ccomments left here that do not meet the above guideliens may be summarily moved or deleted at the discretion of any administrator.
  • Requests that are in this section and have had no new comment in the last 3 days may be removed by any editor. Requests may be removed earlier at any administrator's discretion.

Eminem

vandalism I and others have reverted many times. May need temporary page protection or banning of vandals. Revolución 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No vandalism today, so I'm hoping the vandals are bored of getting reverted. Request again if the situation changes. Thryduulf 16:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

There is a problem with an 'edit war' on this page. The group most closely associated with Charles Taze Russell's Last Will & Testament, and documented legacy, have had factual data removed from the article in favor of groups who have no association with him. A permanent protection is requested to maintain the integrity of the Misplaced Pages entry, and to prevent accurate material being removed, and innacurate material being added, etc... Thank you. PastorRussell 18:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that this article does need protection now, but having looked more into the history of the article, its talk and having read the RfC (which I will shortly be endorsing) I am no longer neutral. As such it would be inapropriate for me to protect the page on any version. Please could another admin do this. Thryduulf 20:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If You Leave Me Now

This is basically a revert war in progress. I thought the person had lost interest but they started up again today. I suspect that the same anonymous user is the one who keeps inserting the same editorial line at the end of the article. The IP addresses are not the same, but very similar. If this were a registered user I would be more than happy to take it to their talk page. I've already reverted twice today. Request a proteciton of the page, but without the editorial comment included at the end. An example is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=If_You_Leave_Me_Now&oldid=20196135. I also suggest banning the IP range of 211.24.65-70 if possible. --Cholmes75 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected, don't really see a reason to block the IP range, only a mild annoyance if anything. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
That's cool. Thanks much! --Cholmes75 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: List of airports in the People's Republic of China

As below, the person requesting protection has done nothing to attempt to resolve the issues related to his request for protection. The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article. There is no reason to keep this article protected. The nominator of the protection violated the standing version of the page and that is what is being protected currently. I have attempted to detail the differences between versions of the article in an attempt to have a valid discussion. If he is the only one objecting, than this protection is only serving to protect a version of the article without consensus and prevents other editors from moving forward. If there is some issue here, explanatory text in the article and not reverts and protection, are the answer. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

" The article stood for months until he attempted to change, and limit, the scope of the article. "
Please don't say something which is not entirely true. Kindly take a look at the edit history, and one can tell what was the title of the article , what was it created for , and who changed its scope . Further, as below, I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{twoversions}} tag. — Instantnood 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The change stood. People took that change of scope, went with it, and made subsequent edits. You, and you only, came along and complained. You revert warred. You reverseed everyone else's edits. Your version stands now. Once you got your way and had the page protected, you took your ball and went home. I've asked you to come to the talk page and discuss it to get it unprotected. It's been ignored for a week. Please justify why it needs protection. Please engage in meaningfull discussion on what's necessary to get the page unprotected. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

HELLO ADMINS. PLEASE NOTE THE MADDENING DISCUSSIONS ON THE TALK PAGE OF THESE ARTICLES. We are now at 40k each of this ridiculous discussion. This is one single user who refuses to make any concession, who refuses to talk, who refuses to address questions, and whose proposal to move forward is to fork the articles (via the twoversions template). This page protection is ridiculous. We cannot have a single user acting as the arbiter of these articles. SchmuckyTheCat 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The point of the protection is to stop the revert wars. I do not have any confidence that if the protection was removed the revert wars wouldn't resume just as soon as both sides became aware of it. There is an arbcom case ongoing, hopefully the outcome of that will shed some light on how to procede here. Thryduulf 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect: List of companies in the People's Republic of China

Since being protected the person asking for protection has not attempted any effort at resolving the issue and has had a week to do so. She obviously sees that her version is the protected one. In my world, a person asking for protection for non-vandal reasons hsa the obligation to at least attempt discussion or to find a mediator or RfC to resolve the problem. I've attempted to jumpstart that discussion by detailing the differences between preferred versions but there is no valid reason to keep this protected from people not involved in the overall dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I requested for protection not because of the disagreement, but the refusals to put on, and the many trials to remove the {{twoversions}} tag. The disagreement here is part of an ArbCom case. Both sides should refrain from controversial edits, instead of making edits as such: . — Instantnood 19:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
It is simply ridiculous, that while the Arbcom is on-going, you decided its perfectly alright to spark major arguments by making controversial edits, yet at this point in time, you actually think others should refrain from doing so by quoting an edit aimed at salvaging the situation.--Huaiwei 19:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
To repeat, the notice I added was similar to those on many other mainland China-related articles. — Instantnood 20:04, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
And to repeat, that can hardly be called an excuse when you are clearly aware that it will be met with strong protests particurly when its usage is not appriopriate.--Huaiwei 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know that was so far the only instance that the notice met with protests. And please be reminded here is not a place to continue the discussion on the articles. I requested for protection because of refusals to put on the {{twoversions}} tag, and many trials to remove it, while I have explained for several times in the edit summary why that version was chosen. — Instantnood 21:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The twoversions tag is not an end, it is ugly, and should be removed by discussion and work towards consensus as soon as possible. It means nothing to readers. Obviously the dispute is not about that ugly template. Come to the talk page and discuss. You put the tag on, revert everyone else's edits, and then you got the page protected, took your ball and went home and stopped discussing. Do you propose that this article stand with this meaningless template in a protected state forever? SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to unprotect this at the moment, for the same reasons as the airports article above. Thryduulf 23:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS conspiracy theories again

Two issues: dispute over a potentially biasing title/method of presentation, and, dispute over whether a dispute exists. Continued edit war appears to me to be censorship of the existence of a dispute: . zen master T 17:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about zen. S/he is upset that the title change s/he so desperately wants to that article has no consensus, and s/he now thinks its appropriate to place warnings on the article itself. This is in the context of zen's desire for the term "conspiracy theory" to be excised from the WP. S/he is holding the article hostage. --Mrfixter 17:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
A quick glance at the talk page and history will show there are half a dozen other editors that agree there is no consensus to sweep the existence of a lack of neutrality complaint under the rug. zen master T 17:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

An anonymous user keeps deleting sentense about Limbaugh meeting his wife on Compuserve. There is consensus among article contributors to keep it in, he has deleted it more than a dozen times. He shows no sign of giving up, and we tried reasoning with him on the talk page. Put it up on RFC as well. MicahMN | Talk 15:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the anon user for 24 hours for breaking the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. As it was only the one user, page protection shouldn't be needed. If they come back with a different IP or others take up his cause without disucssion then re-request page protection. Note that 3RR violations should be reported at WP:AN/3. Thryduulf 16:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Islam

Edit war has taken a pause, but based on the past history of the users involved, I'm sure this will rise up again as soon as everyone wakes up in the morning. We're in the middle of discussion seaking compromise on the talk page, so hopefully we will work out things in a few days. Will also throw up on WP:RFC--Tznkai 02:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No evidence of edit waring today, hopefully this will continue to be the case without protection. Thryduulf 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

IP address

For weeks external links are being added and deleted (with no other type of edits). (This page had burned out at least one editor - Weyes.) It is the most frequently spammed page I have on watch (out of 2,500). Pavel Vozenilek 15:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I applies applied {{vprotect}} to it. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 15:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I speaks goodly :) Dmcdevit·t 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The lady doth protest too much =P Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:33, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pharmacy

This has been vandalised 7 or 8 times in recent days (always in the same way, although by different IPs). Please could it be locked until the vandal loses interest? --Batneil 11:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Done Sasquatch′↔T↔C 15:53, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

Edit war with Gbambino who keeps removing factual information. Homey 21:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Another edit war, protected. Dmcdevit·t 21:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
And unprotected five minutes later. Guess it wasn;t as contentious as they thought. :) --Dmcdevit·t 21:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

This article is filled with Copyvio information that a particular anon keeps reinserting into the article, and is currently the focus of an intense RV war. TDC 18:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Edit Summary notes, it has been requested that you cite the Copyvio material on the Discussion page so that it may be reviewed and removed if necessary. It is impossible to tell from your edits what information you refer to, since your reversions corrupt 90% of the article. As of this moment, there is still no indication on the Discussion page of exactly what information you feel may be in violation. 209.86.4.248 19:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The issue is still in talk, and by the way Copyvio infringements can be avoided by removing one or two words. TDC 20:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
They can? I'll bet there are some attorneys that would disagree with you. I've checked the Talk page, and you are right: The issue is still there. I see requests for TDC to cite the alleged violations, and I see TDC ignoring those requests. I see TDC tried this same stunt in October, 2004 and again in February, 2005, and Admins had to intervene. Closer examination of TDC's recent edit history leads me to believe his reversions are intended as antagonism, and not constructive editing. 165.247.202.224 08:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sure that some attorneys might argue all kinds of crazy things, but not this time. Also, if you go to talk, the citations are now there. TDC 14:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Continual RV war with no end in sight with myself and an Anon user whose blocking would result in the blocking of too wide a band of EarthLink users. Anon user continues to insert potential copyvio material into article without discussion. Please protect article until issues can be sorted out in talk TDC 14:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've protected the article, with the intent to unprotect in 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Lupin/overlib.js

Javascript library written by someone else. I don't want this to change (until it's time to upgrade it). Lupin 15:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure customized skins are protected by default. Only yourself or admins can edit it. Try logging out and see if you can edit it. --Dmcdevit·t 18:09, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's been a (helpful) edit made by User:Master Thief Garrett to User:Lupin/popups.js, so I don't think that's quite correct. Lupin 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
That's because he's a sysop and can edit protected pages... see here. I don't think protection is going to make a difference. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clearing that up! No need for protection, it seems. Lupin 21:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also protect User:Lupin/md5.js, for the same reasons. Lupin 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian denar

Last 40 edits are reverts. User:Theathenae did not answer to the talk page, but kept reverting. bogdan | 09:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh. Protected, but you two need to come to an agreement. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy (request unprotection)

Protected on July 19 because of an edit war about an external link. In response to an RfC about the dispute, only one registered user supported including the link, with 11 opposed. The only other support came from multiple anonymous IP's, most with little or no edit history except for comments on Talk:Ted Kennedy and vandalisms. The informal mediator, Kelly Martin, has recommended unprotection. JamesMLane 18:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Dmcdevit·t 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Massacre at Hue

There is presently an edit war ensuing on this article. Myself, and at least 2 other editors have taken to reverting the article to preferred versions -- sometimes on a minute to minute basis. The 3RR has also been violated several times (by myself as well, I'm embarrassed to say). I'm requesting an Admin step in and temporarily protect the page in the hopes the other editors will be steered to the Discussion page for productive discourse. Simply requesting discussion hasn't worked thus far. 209.86.1.9 00:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

As discussion has died down, and main beef appears to have been resolved, I request that this be unprotected. If more problems occur, I will put in for an RfC. TDC 15:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Main beef" has been resolved? After reviewing the Talk page, I see no such resolution. I also see more than one point of contention being discussed, without agreement. I predict edit wars will resume if the editors can't even form concensus on the Talk page. 209.86.1.200 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course you predict edit wars, as you have proven yourself more than willing to Rv an article over a dozen times a day if the new version does not suit your tastes.TDC 17:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
And this statement comes from "TDC"?? What a hoot.  :) 209.86.1.200 19:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please unprotect, anon user has no intent on "discussion", just force feeding his version of the article. TDC 15:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotecting would result in continued revert wars and/or vandalism, as User TDC appears intent on maintaining a POV article. 209.86.1.123 16:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks and irrelevant discussion removed. I quote from the top of the page: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies.

For the record, admins do not have access to the IP addresses used by logged in users. This facility is available only to developers and those who have been given permission to use teh m:check user utility - I believe this latter is only user:Tim Starling and user:David Gerard on the English wikipedia. Thryduulf 16:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Any chance the article is going to be un protected any time soon? TDC 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • We're close to agreement on the intro, but do you anticipate more wars over the rest of the article? There are differences between the latest two revisions that we haven't addressed. 209.86.1.211 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You appear to be engaged in productive dialoge, so I have unprotected it but please continue the dialoge rather than reverting each other. You might find a {{controversial}} tag beneficial if other editors start altering your agreed versions. Thryduulf 00:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)