Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Evil Spartan (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 15 April 2008 (Requesting full protection of User talk:Ultraussie.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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

temporary full protection Vandalism, abuse by blocked user.The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

King of the Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Vandalism, Constant vandalism by IPs to the 2008 event (which will not occur till next Monday), as they add unannounced names, and names who are not employed by WWE. Smi Protect till Next Monday (4/21/08)..~SRS~ 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite full protection Vandalism, Ongoing anon vandalism going back ages. Virtually no actual changes (certainly none by anon contributors) have been made to this article in months: it's all just vandalism, and reverts, and it's getting to be a lot of work to keep an eye on it..-- Mark Chovain 02:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one month.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Friend or Foe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protection high levels of vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, relentless, several times a day, IP vandalism..Anastrophe (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of three days. Tiptoety 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flavor of Love 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protect of semi-protect - The page keeps being changed back to how it used to be, which almost caused the page to be deleted and there has been a lot of vandalism from IP accounts. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection, anonymous users keep trying to add an excessive amount of unnecessary external links to the article, in violation of WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:EL. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary create-protection , Twice-created attack page..GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 01:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined re-report if they create the page again. Tiptoety 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

full protect or semi-protect. Recently a high level of IP vandalism. Kltiger (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Tiptoety 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

David Kennedy (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Lots of recent vandalism from IPs and new accounts. Enviroboy_Cs 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of four days. Tiptoety 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Temp Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, eyeOS is a OpenSource and free computer program, and psychf and other 3 ips (unregistered users), the owner of http://www.psychdesktop.net/ from the competition, is editing the article and adding lies etc...etc... The users of the eyeOS project (community volunteers) are trying to improve the article but is difficult to do it with this level of vandalism. We only want to create a serious article with references. Teddybearnow (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it is vandalism, but there does appear to be a dispute. --Snigbrook 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Elmwood Park High School (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. The first version I reverted had a comment that was a personal attack, and all recent edits have been vandalised. I don't really know what to do here; I don't know anything about the school, and don't want to watch the page, but it looks like someone will have to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined Not enough recent activity to justify protection. I will watch the article for the time being. --Hdt83 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Temp Semi-protect. Too many reverts and vandalism, and also false information. Dwilso 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not one edit as of today, re-report if the vandalism starts back up. Tiptoety 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection after restoring the deleted references (refiled: problem continues). Spillover from nl:Misplaced Pages where a group of users try to eliminate every appearance of my name and undo any edit that I make. I'd further appreciate an attempt to prevent expansion of the warzone. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have invented the unimportance of his work. GijsvdL (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Above info by user is false, as before. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Any moderator may visit NL.wiki IRC and verify. GijsvdL (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Information on the IRC is unreliable since user's friends are in control there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection Dispute, Edit-warring going on; lack of proper discussion..—TreasuryTag—t—c 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 4 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--Húsönd 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:75.57.196.81 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary full protection , IP keeps removing {{sharedip}} header from his/her page....—TreasuryTag—t—c 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined The situation is currently being monitored by admins and ANI. -- zzuuzz 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protection Vandalism, This article is subject to a constant stream of vandalism from IP users. These occur almost daily - four times today definitely, with another being either vandalism or a clumsy editor. TimTay (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for two weeks. Acalamari 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Temporary full-protection Pre-emptive measure against an edit war, An ongoing debate about an issue with the lead has caused the instigator of the debate to begin making changes to the lead without consensus. I reverted the first edit, she then reverted mine. She is not going to stop doing this, she claims she is forming consensus by making consensus-less edits. I am requesting protection until a consensus is formed.TheNobleSith (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.Jauerback/_dude. 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've been active on this article, so I will not protect it myself, but I believe declining this request simply at the sight of the word "pre-emptive" is a bit short sighted. Please see comments below. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Response - this article just came out of full protection for four days to stop a disruptive editor who continually makes changes without consensus. Previous version was decided upon by consensus, and discussion on the talk page shows a consensus to stick with the stable version previously decided (by RFC a year ago) until a new consensus is formed. This is not a pre-emptive measure as much as it is protection from disruptive edits. Given that the last RFPP was granted, and the same editor who caused the problem the last time has started with the same behavior, I don't see how this is any less valid than the last (unless you're basing it solely on the language used by the requestor, which didn't clearly describe the situation). Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response - Seconded. This is not pre-emptive, this is post-disruption. Disruption from the same editor who started the edit war in the first place - who continues the war after the page got unprotected. Kevin Baas 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to see this page protected as well, or a block placed on Jsn9333 (talk · contribs) as a disruptive SPA. Jsn9333 is the only editor actively reverting to his version, while all others (including the few who support Jsn's version) continue discussion on the talk page. Seeing how the edits since un-protection are simply a continuation of the previous edit war, protection would be extremely beneficial in requiring discussion without allowing one editor to continue to force one version into the article. - auburnpilot talk 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Shamrock, Texas (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

indefinite full protection Vandalism, This article was put on a multi-week page protection after several anonymous IPs continue vandalizing the page trying to make it an attack piece against the city, while also keeping a running vitrol on the talk page (now archived to Talk:Shamrock, Texas/Archive 1. The protection was lifted on the 11th, and two days later the anon user was back with a new IP beginning his campaign again. While he has stuck to only making attacks on the talk page, I am concerned he will eventually begin attacking the article again, and that his continuing disruptions on the talk page will discourage anyone from trying to edit this article. This person, and the other anon IP which attacked the article before, have shown that they have a very strong biased against this city, and will continue these actions by constantly changing IP. I feel it is in the article's best interest to continue its semi-protection status for a longer period of time and extend it to both the article Shamrock, Texas and its talk page, up to being indefinite. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. (to both article and talk page). A rangeblock on the IP (216.167.133.*) would resolve the matter if it continues. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Our disagreement with Collectonian is in that it seems to be "OK" for the city official to post unsubstantiated "evidence" (linking to non-existent information that "looks" official but leads nowhere) while our posts that are linked to sbstantiating court documents are deleted as soon as they appear. Something is "not right" about this practice--216.167.133.159 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How many more places are you going to post this at? You're at what, five different pages so far? You didn't link to "substantiating court documents" you linked to the attack website y'all created. Beyond that, the post was left because it went unnoticed. I only looked at it carefully after your post and then removed them both after first removing your usual vitrol filled stuff. That IP had never posted to the page before. You, meanwhile, had a history of vandalism, slander, and personally attacking multiple editors, so yours was removed quickly while the other was checked. After confirming that none of it belongs here, it was removed. Misplaced Pages is not your personal forum to slam Shamrock. Do it on your talk page or through your radio station. Take your private arguments back where they came from. They do not belong in an article talk page at all. (and none of this really belongs here either) Collectonian (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Viva la Vida or Death And All His Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Move protection. This article has been moved about 5 times in the past two days (including one cut and paste move) due to an edit war regarding the album's title which is unclear at the moment (see the Talk page). kollision (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Move protected four weeks. If a consensus for the correct name is reached on the article Talk, ask any admin to undo the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Full protection - this article is being constantly reverted by Itihaaskar (talk · contribs) - a new edit war has started and he won't stop. Without discussing properly, he keeps reverting it to his version. The article was already protected once because of his reversions and subsequent edit warring, and the user was blocked twice for sockpuppeting. Now, after one month or so of peace, he comes back and restores his own version of a particularly controversial section in the article. Please protect. Shahid • 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected two weeks. On April 13 User:Itihaaskar came off a one-month block issued by User:Blnguyen. This issue has previously been discussed at ANI. Why not write to Blnguyen and see what he thinks about the current situation? The conflict has been going on since 18 February, and it doesn't seem likely that full protection would cause Itihaaskar to begin negotiating. Full protected as requested. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I will definitely do that and ask Blg. But he was blocked for sockpuppeting, not edit warring. Once he is back today, he will surely revert to his own version, a version which is incohorent, full of errors, POV. I had copyedited this version (see my long analysis on the talk page), neutrlised it, but he came back and started reverting again, despite being aware of two other editors who agree with me. I'll definitely try to solve this issue, but before that, please protect the article, because there will be no end to that. Regards, Shahid • 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Full-protection; person is possibly dead (a body was found at London Paddington, possibly his) but there's a dispute on whether we should wait for the post-mortem to confirm it or not. Sceptre 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possibly reaching into BLP territory too. Sceptre 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Majorly. I don't think full protection is warranted at this time. -- zzuuzz 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, Abuse of talk page Sock of Wolf122.Alexfusco 15:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Wolf122 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

indefinite full protection User talk of blocked user, Repeated abuse of talk page.Alexfusco 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Full protection Constant IP and registered user vandalism today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined Deleted once by Nick. Salting not necessary. Húsönd 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

User:21655 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

unprotection , Completely forgot to request unprotection (read: kept it for a while to repel vandals, but decided, hey, it's another step to AIV for the idiots).21655 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unprotected Acalamari 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Unprotection Big updates just occurred on the site, and I'd like to update the page accordingly. I created this account specifically for this purpose although, I've come to find out that I cannot edit the article for a period of time. I seem to be the only literate CP player, so I believe I could be an asset to this page, if I could edit it. I have experience on other wiki's and I strongly believe I could help this article. Repleh (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

Fulfilled/denied requests

User:Thingg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

temporary semi-protection Vandalism, Due to apparent campaign of IP vandalism originating at Tigerdroppings.com.xenocidic (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. _GB 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism and removal of sourced material. Wiki San Roze 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 5 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Philippe 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection Requesting indef protect, but any length would be appreciated. This article has seen an unbelievable amount of vandalism over the last few weeks and I have no idea what is going on here. (please also note my last edit to this page.) Thingg 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 1 week. Semi-protection will automatically expire then. --Pigman☿ 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi protect considerable levels of anon vandalism. Please consider an indefite semi protection if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - Philippe 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Full protection - Two users, Dsmurat and the IP address 195.174.21.72 continue a revert war on the Göktürk page, restoring an unsourced flag to the article. Neither have responded to inquiries on their talk pages, the talk page of the article, and the talk page of the flag in question (Image:Flag of Göktürks.svg). The do not provide any credible sources, and revert without discussion, therefore I believe that the Gokturk article should be fully protected to end the revert war.Rcduggan (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--chaser - t 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection. High levels of recent IP vandalism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected--chaser - t 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection - recent continued vandalism from several different IPs. Grsz11 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Rudget (review) 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi protect considerable levels of anon vandalism. Please consider an indefite semi protection if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Rudget (review) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, Article is a constant target of vandalism by at least one very persistant IP editor who keeps adding a large block of hate ending "Considering BJP as a political option violates the most fundamental, universal and timeless truth about rights to governance.Let u pray for the destruction of these evil men.Let us rid the world of these wretches.".John Nevard (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, articles are only semi-protected indefinitely if they have a severe, endemic level of IP vandalism. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary semi-protection , About a week I would say. OTRS Ticket#: 2008041410015061.NonvocalScream (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

indefinite semi-protection Vandalism, requesting for the second time on the basis of resent high ip vandalism , kindly check the article to see how concrete references are removed and the whole article is diverted to , if we wait for a little while will sure lead the article in a wrong direction . kindly check the entire edit log of the article and its talkpage to understand the real need that lead to my request ..@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined Articles are not semi-protected to settle content disputes. Additionally, I could see very little vandalism of the article - although I could see several instances where "vandalism" was used to mean "changes I disagree with". CIreland (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Consistant vandalism by IPs. Mikemill (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. CIreland (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Military of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection. Consistant vandalism by IPs. Mikemill (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. CIreland (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Decker-closeup.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

C-upload. Another unprotected image on the front page (the third fourth that I alone have found in the last couple weeks!). Just a matter of time before the main page is vandalized. 65.213.184.1 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected -- zzuuzz 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

temporary full protection after restoring the deleted references. Spillover from nl:Misplaced Pages where a group of users try to eliminate every appearance of my name and undo any edit that I make. Note that conflict of interest no longer applies to the references, except that I cannot revert. I'd further appreciate an attempt to prevent expansion of the warzone. The article is normally updated once a year. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have invented the unimportance of his work. Please don't help him. GijsvdL (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The information provided by user is incorrect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. In addition, admins don't (or at least aren't supposed to) protect and immediately revert, unless there is obvious vandalism on the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)