Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by P-Real DA deal (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 12 May 2009 (Requesting semi-protection of Lamborghini. (TW)). 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.

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

    Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, to much vandals almost everyday. P-Real DA deal (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection IP vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. Enigmamsg 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism from multiple IPs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite full protection Article is a long-term target for vandalism; most edits going back at least six months (haven't looked further) are re-introduction of same disruptive nonsense. JNW (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Vandalism due to media attention. Laurent (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite full protection vandalism, This page is a persistent target of vandalism from IPs. . Agathman (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Woops, meant to ask for indefinite semi-protection. Agathman (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism. RashersTierney (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) blocked. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protect. Article has been vandalized by IPs for quite awhile, but frequently so in the last 30 days. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pensacola Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection The majority of edits are vandalism by IPs, although my request is based on a recent sock issue. Someone from Akron, Ohio is repeatedly adding spam links by using multiple IP addresses. APK straight up now tell me 14:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Helpme/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection high-visiblity template, People are still trying to edit this page rather than place a helpme on their page. Seems to be mostly IP editors and new editors, so semiprotection should cut down on this. Terrillja talk 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Half of them are auto-confirmed and a documentation page is not a template. Regards SoWhy 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism (all edits in the past month have been IP vandals). The information on the page is static; state capitals generally do not change and the information should be protected. Best, epicAdam(talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The capitals might not change but the text can surely be improved and thus anon editors should be able to do so. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan (Katie Price) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection At present this article is slightly high risk due to what is going on with Price and Andre, so it needs semi-protecting just until everything is sorted if that could be protected it would save a lot of hassle anyway many thanks for you time — 78.145.78.47 (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (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.

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

    Demote to unprotected or semi-protected (from full protection) so that it can be changed from a redirect page into a full article in light of her current and former escapades, and the proposed deletion of boyfriend Levi Johnston...would also note has heavier protections than either her mother, her father, or her president (that's probably not an effective argument, but throwing it out there). Anyway, please change. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I will drop User:Gwen Gale a note about this request. --GedUK  12:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following WP:BLP much care should be taken with this topic and it should not be unprotected unless a consensus to unprotect has been gathered at Talk:Sarah Palin (her noted mother) and whenever this may happen, I'll unprotect. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: I am reopening discussion over this because I believe that it has already happened...the lack of consensus is over what should happen to the article after it has been unprotected, not that the article should be unprotected or semi-protected. I would also note that the main reasons for the protection of the article in the first place (her age and the divisive environment of the 2008 election) have been largely abetted. I would request that another, more impartial editor, other than Gwen Gale, take a look at this.
    Where is the consensus? Wlink please. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen, what is the logic behind requiring a consensus of editors at Talk:Sarah Palin before permitting the creation of an article? As a policy matter, we usually don't give a veto over page creations to editors of a single talk page. They don't represent the larger Wikipedia community. The usual model on Wikipedia is to create articles and then delete them if necessary rather than to decide preemptively that they shouldn't exist. As a practical matters, those editors can hardly find a consensus about the most basic matters. Insisting on a consensus among them means inaction. It's fair to ask for an explanation of this long-term protection. Absent a demonstrated history of policy violations regarding this article, unprotection may be warranted.  Will Beback  talk  10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue was here before (and declined) and is currently at Wikipedia:BLPN#Bristol_Palin. I think the discussion should be kept at BLPN and not split here and the talk page. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen Gale isn't participating in that discusison, which doesn't appear to heading towards a consensus either way. If there's no good reason to maintain protection then it should be lifted. I'd be happy to hear from Gale as to why a nine-month old block is still required.   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further: I see the article has been protected since September 2, 2008, when it was protected as a "high traffic news item".[1] Nine months is a long time to preemptively lock a potential article about a "high traffic" topic. If this were a private person targeted by an Internet meme then it'd be different. However B. Palin is at least a limited public figure and has sought publicity.   Will Beback  talk  10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not posting to the discussion because I'm neutral on it. I'm more than ok with protection being lifted if there is a consensus to do so at Talk:Sarah Palin. So far, there is not. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. You may have missed my questions above regarding why we are giving editors of the talk:Sarah Palin veto over the creation of an article. Can you explain why a nine-month protection has been necesary, considering this isn't a private person? Is there a current (not potential) reason why article creation should still be blocked?   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of CANVASS are you missing, Will? The page was protected as a result of numerous discussions which established a consensus that there should not be a seperate article on BP. Gwen Gale has stated if and when consensus changes, she'll happily unprotect. Consensus has not changed. Harassing GG about consensus she didn't participate in, and is remaining steadfastly neutral towards, cannot possibly help the encyclopedia. Really, I thought I was the only one you badgered like this. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever discussions occurred back in Agust 2008 about Bristol Palin are not really germane anymore, and there is clearly not a consensus to retain full protection now, in May 2009. If there's not a current, ongoing reason for full protection, nine months later, then the protection should be lifted.   Will Beback  talk  11:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP and WP:BIO haven't changed much in the last 9 months. So gather a consensus? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Really? Please link to the discussion where consensus was formed to split Bristol Palin off into a separate article. As I watch the Sarah Palin articles, I find it hard to believe that I missed a discussion about splitting off BP into her own article. Where was the new consensus formed? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <-BLP applies to every living person, yet there aren't many high-profile living persons who've had their article titles protected for so long. Is there a current reason why this particular BLP needs to remain under full protection?   Will Beback  talk  11:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I recall, there was a consensus to protect indefinitely owing to the subject being a minor child whose notability stemmed wholly and utterly from her mum. WP:BLP. There are clearly worries that the article could be used for political smears, which would be unfair to the child. Once again, I'm neutral on this and will lift the protection if there is a consensus to do so. Please take this to Talk:Sarah Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is no longer a minor child, and the parent is no longer involved in a political campaign. The editors of "Sarah Palin" don't agree on much, so making unprotection dependent on them isn't a doesn't make sense. Those editors don't get a veto over Wikipedia ocntent on other articles. Worries aren't sufficient reason for a nine-month block.
    So far I haven't seen 1) any current reason to retain full protection 2) any recent consensus to retain full protection 3) any reason why we are giving a veto over article creation to a few editors at Talk:Sarah Palin.
    Regarding the worries, if actual problems do arise then we can address them through normal procedures and with normal policies. This nine-month long indefinite protection is out-of-policy.   Will Beback  talk  12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the last time I will say this: Show me a consensus to unprotect and I will swiftly and happily do so. Moreover, if this protection is beyond the bounds of policy, gathering a consensus to unprotect should be a snap. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do we get this requirement that we need a consensus at Talk:Sarah Palin before we create an article at Bristol Palin?   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <- The default for Wikipedia is open editing, so the burden is on those protecting articles to justify continued protection. Longterm protection is the exception, not the rule. Some editors say that there is still a consensus to retain the protection from last September. I don't see it. Here's a suggestion for moving forward. Let's poll or RFC the editors of Talk:Sarah Palin and see if there's a consensus keeping the article title protected. If there' no consensu then the article should be unprotected. That's not how protection decisions are usually made, but it's a compromise. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion. B Palin isn't utterly dissimilar to L Johnston, and indeed some might say that their celebrity/nonnotability are very alike. Johnston's article is right now undergoing a (curiously protracted) AfD This may succeed and it may not. Whether or not it succeeds, its fate may inform and help anyone wondering what to do about a B Palin article. Even those who sincerely believe it's very wrong to prevent the creation of the latter might agree that a few days' continuation of this prevention will not harm WP, Palin, or anything or anyone else. So I suggest putting this on hold until the Johnston AfD is resolved one way or another. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not a request for unprotection but one for consideration. In brief, I protected it and it's me who's sitting on it; am I doing the right thing? Please see the talk page and comment there rather than here. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) George Lazenby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Both articles have been indefinetely semi-protected by User:Nightscream in an effort to enforce a very strict interpretation of WP:V and WP:BLP. The offending material that has been reintroduced by IP users has in both cases not been sensitive info. In both cases the protection has been triggered by a dispute over date and place of birth. There has been no sign of persistent or heavy vandalism preceding the protection and the articles have never been under protection before. I have requested twice[2][3] that Nightscream lift the protection, but without success.

    Peter Isotalo 19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think that there is no reason for protection here per WP:PROTECT but I would like another admin's opinion. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for 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.

    Fulfilled/denied requests

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, persistent anonymous vandalism. LeaveSleaves 09:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 09:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Violence against LGBT people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection dispute, Edit warring over an image in the article while the image is currently listed at Files for deletion. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Both you and Damiens.rf know not to edit-war, so we can handle this very easy with blocking edit-warriors instead. Regards SoWhy 07:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be snarky. I wasn't edit warring. 2 reverts. He's had 6 over the last 3 days. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 08:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-warring is not a question of how often you do it and I did not say you did. I said both of you know not do it and if you do, blocks can achieve the same result as locking down the article. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, High-value POV target... Lots of vandalism and SPA's today. I don't have time for RFCU on the SPA's, but they might qualify as obvious SOCKS. . /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 07:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Up Protection Level. The page is currently at Semi-Protection for 2 weeks but since the finale will air after then, there probably will be vandalism by IPs. Please up protection level to at least another month or so.

    I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. If re-protection is necessary when it becomes unprotected, re-list it and we will protect it again. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite semi-protection, An IP persists in adding unsourced content which asserts relationship which can't be verified by reliable sources concerning whether Foster has had a domestic relationship with two woman. This is a WP:BLP concern and the page needs to be semi-protected to prevent this from being included without someone's notice. . Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. SoWhy 07:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Redirected per AfD awhile back; IP editors keep undoing, restoring to AfD tagged article. . -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, it's always the same IP, can be blocked. SoWhy 07:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary protection - ongoing tendentious editing that is seeking to add libellous material per WP:BLP without adequate WP:RS. More than a content dispute due to the BLP element. Talk discussion over a number of weeks has failed to resolve the issue. Rossrs (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please! An editor has tried several times to write content that at first just said Wood died while in the water with Robert Wagner and Christopher Walken, then has tried to slant it that way more ambiguously. Same editor insists IMDB, National Enquirer (sourced to a blogspot column) and such sources are valid and reliable. These latest editions are libelous in nature, claiming Walken and WOod were involved, and alleged a homosexual relationship between Robert Wagner and Walken. Same editor has uploaded more than one screenshot from Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice and claimed it as free use, despite being told repeatedly it is not free-use. The last edit inserted a subsection titled "As a beard", implying... well... This has crossed a line to creating serious legal issues for WP with what was written. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined, handle the editor individually if they are disruptive (WP:ANEW or WP:ANI are the correct venue). SoWhy 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection spamming and edit-warring by user who has switched IPs when one IP was blocked (see 71.122.23.39 (talk · contribs) and 173.169.149.127 (talk · contribs)). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Guns N' Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Vandalised by several editors every day. Also consider a semi-protection of Axl Rose, I'm tired of reverting those pages again and again... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SoWhy 07:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Exodus from Lydda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Requesting unprotection so that editing can continue -- the article is in the process of being written. Sandstein protected it on May 9 [4] after some reverting over whether to add a redirect tag. There were only three reverts in all, so I feel protection wasn't really necessary. I filed an RfC over the tag issue, which is now being discussed on talk [5] and will be resolved amicably. In the meantime, it would be great to get back to expanding the article. Sandstein is offline so I can't ask him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected. Sandstein indicated on his talk that he will access the situation and then unprotect if possible, so I think the decision should be his to make and it's nothing that pressing that waiting for his decision cannot be done. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

    semi-protection vandalism, Lots of IP vandalism of late. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Most of the IP edits were vandalism, and there was a need to restore entire sections lost due to vandalism, in other words, Kirby, though able to fly and swallow to gain copy abilities, is unable to stop himself from vandals. Please help save him from the relentless attacks against him (at least one week would suffice). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Might want to keep this safe until 'current events' quiet down.... Yeah dude, PowerUserPCDude was here (yeah) (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of programs broadcast by GMA Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect. vandalism, anon users keep on adding unsourced "upcoming" shows on this article. -danngarcia (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Sides Now (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection. Persistent vandalism.; speculation and mainly IP edits Willking1979 (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=289522804"