The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
This page is not for proposing or discussing edits to protected pages.
To request or propose a change to a page that you are not able to edit, place a message on its talk page. If the page is fully protected, you may attract the attention of an admin to make the change by placing the {{edit fully-protected}} template above your request. Requests placed here will probably be removed or ignored.
If the page in question and its talk page are both protected please make your edit request at Wikipedia:Request for edit.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Padlock color for upload protection
Do we use any specific padlock icon for files that are upload protected only? The shortcut to #Upload_protection is WP:PURPLELOCK but I haven't seen this used anywhere. I assume it's either (more of a pink but it's called "Padlock-purple.svg") or (Padlock-violet.svg). I want to know so I can make it the same on Commons. If neither is in use yet, which one should we go with? Rocket000 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice to have the appropriate template altered to include a new padlock as an option to appear in the top right corner of a page with Upload protection invoked on it. There's no real visible indicator that a File has Upload protection, except for the lack of the Upload option of course, which is both hard to spot and confusing for users unfamiliar with Upload protection. It'd be nice if you could just come across a File, and instantly be able to tell it has this protection.--DorsalAxe12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
do we even need it? i have never seen "upload protection" actully being used on wikipedia and non of the pages what use the pink lock are any article pages Sophie(Talk)15:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One revert a day protection?
That was implemented under and arbitration on one article I worked on under "discretionary sanctions" or something. Something like that is needed in Libertarianism which has been a complete battleground between editors for last 6 months with constant administrative complaints. Can that only be done under an arbitration, since I don't see anything like that in this article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A late reply, but WP:1RR is a behavioral restriction enforced by blocks. On occasion a single admin might impose it on someone as a condition of unblocking them. There is no technical means of preventing reverts while allowing other edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Order of entries
It looks like some effort has recently been undertaken to reorder the presentation of protection levels in some sort of order of "strength". I'd like to suggest instead that the page be reordered to move office action and permanent protection to the bottom. I know these are "potent", but it's very unlikely a user is arriving at this page seeking information on these two types of protection, since they're, by the numbers, the rarest protection types, and are very unlikely to concern most users. I'm assuming most users are interested in (1) full protection and (2) semiprotection. It would make more sense to feature these first. --Bsherr (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I meant to do this after I saw someone move office protection to the top. It's so rare that it doesn't need first placement. –xenotalk20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.
However while I think that for a simple content dispute between two inexperienced editors then arbitrarily freezing the page with the most recent revert is acceptable solution, with more experienced editors it encourages the very behaviour we wish to stop. This is because of the phenomena that diplomats refer to as "facts on the ground" or in the words of Nathan Bedford Forrest the "first with the most". Many editors perceive that if their preferred version is in place when the page is frozen then are then able to argue that there must be a "consensus" to change it.
This leads to practices such as reverting to a preferred version and then immediately putting in a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or reporting the incident of "they are edit warring" to WP:ANI or putting in a Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because even if administrators don't agree to take further action, on the alleged infringement, they will often protect the page and the person who has made the last revert has "facts on the ground". Other experienced editors knowing that at any moment the page may be protected with the "wrong version" are under considerable pressure to revert the page to their preferred version in case the page is protected. Both parties know that in an ideal world they should not be reverting, but the dynamics of the system resulting from the current specification encourage their behaviour.
A similar problem used to occur in WP:RM because of the requirement to show there was a consensus for a move, encouraged editors to move a page (facts on the ground), because there then needed to be a clear consensus to move it back. But that behaviour was stopped by allowing an editor to move the page back to the last stable version before a WP:RM was started (see the section "uncontroversial requests").
I this case, unlike page moves, because content changes to pages frequently build up it can be next to impossible for an administrator to decide what was the last stable version, therefore we can not use the same simple rule as us used in WP:RM. Instead we need one that is equally transparent and easy to understand. So the change to this policy that I think would help prevent content disputes becoming edit wars would be to alter the wording in the "Content disputes" section to recommended that:
When protecting a page because of a content dispute, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons,
administrators should normally protect the version before the last revert, or as this sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.
I think that this simple alteration will have a great effect of moving content disputes among experienced editors from article space onto the talk pages which is where they ought to be.
As this would be a major change in how content disputes are handled, I would like as many administrators as possible to consider this proposal and express opinions on it. I am sure there are points that I have not considered that ought to be raised and discussed before any change is made. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt What do you mean by ongoing dispute? I am involved in a number of RFCs are are they all disputes? As I have not reverted Targeted killing back to the redirect it was for a number of years, in nearly two weeks, so why do consider it to be an active dispute? Cirt, If you are assuming good faith can you please explain by what Machivilian scheem you think this proposal "could be see as a form of wikilawyering and forumshopping, regarding that ongoing dispute"? -- PBS (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This proposed change is unnecessary. Of course admins can already remove vandalism and BLP violations from full-protected pages. Instituting this change could lead to wikilawyering on "which version" contains something that someone thinks from their particular POV is disagreeable. Worse yet, for non-obvious cases, it could lead to disruption, or even wheel warring among administrators. The intended impact related to vandalism and BLP issuse, is already fully apparent, from existing site policy pages. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the current wording means an administator can change to any version they think best. The only change I am suggesting is that instead of freezing the page at the most recent arbitrary edit the default is the previous edit. This would not lead to any more wheel warring among administrators than currently happens. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble seeing how this would prevent gaming by the experienced edit warrior; indeed, I fear that it would make it worse. This modification would mean that warriors up against 3RR would get another revert 'for free' from the protecting admin. If the current version of the article is deeply flawed, then the admin is already empowered to roll back to the last stable version; we already know that protecting the current revision (or the immediately preceding one) is going to be protecting the Wrong Version. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they would not because the chances are that it would be their version which was reverted, because their behaviour can at any time be reported to ANI and unlike the current method which encourages reverting to a preferred version while the ANI process is done, this would encourage editors not to have their preferred version on the page. The whole point of the proposal is to damp down content disputes on the article page and encourage more use of the talk page before the article page is frozen. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, "this would encourage editors not to have their preferred version on the page." My concern, therefore, is that it might result in false flag sock/meat puppetry. If page protection appeared imminent, a party could use an alternate account (or a friend, thereby thwarting a CheckUser investigation) to revert to his/her non-preferred version, ensuring that an administrator would revert back to his/her preferred version when protecting it. This, of course, would encourage opposing parties to act in kind, bizarrely inverting the edit war instead of halting it (and effectively punishing users refraining from such behavior, particularly those to whom such a scheme would never even occur). —David Levy01:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the three-revert rule which is to do with blocking editors, and this proposal which is to do with protecting a page. Usually the two do not go hand in hand. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was because of the point you raised with Hesperian below I think it becomes intertwined with you worries about sock puppetry. -- PBS (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If some one is going to result to tactics like that then they will end up with a user block. At the moment people can perfectly legally game the system by timing their revert and a request for administrator intervention. This suggestion is not to deal with sockpuppet cases, a but with two (or sometimes more) editors who do not break any rules who end up in a slow revert war because of the tradition of an administrator simply protecting the most recent version (as described above). This change is to brake that cycle and help encourage editors of the wise good standing to reach a compromise on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm referring to tactics that might be undetectable. Even the opposing party could be misled to believe that another editor has reverted to his/her preferred version for sincere reasons. And if he/she is unaware of the impending administrative reversion or doesn't wish to exploit it by engaging in retaliatory sock/meat puppetry, the disengagement that your proposal is intended to encourage — while appearing to occur — actually is the deceptive party standing back and waiting for an administrator to revert on his/her behalf and protect the page. And if the opposing party is aware of the impending administrative reversion and does wish to exploit it, the aforementioned inverted edit war will ensue.
2. I realize that the proposal is not intended to address sock puppetry. I'm pointing out that it would encourage new instances of sock/meat puppetry. —David Levy05:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is going to resort to sock puppetry over this issue then, that person is likely to be doing it at the moment because of the three revert rule. In most cases I think we can assume good faith and that most editors edit within the guidelines. For example many experienced editors revert to preferred versions but not many experienced editors knowingly breach the 3RR rule. While some experienced editors may game the system few (I hope) would resort to sock puppets. Those few times where I have been involved in sophisticated sockpuppetry it always comes as a real surprise that such an apparently upright fellow was in fact not so. (That is not to say that with some editors it really comes as little surprises that they resort to such perfidy). I think that the wording already there which is included in this proposal will allow sufficient discretion for administrators to use their own judgement if such shenanigans are suspected. -- PBS (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm referring to situations in which such "shenanigans" are likely to go undetected.
The hypothetical sock/meat puppetry that I've described differs from the conventional type in the key respect that if one editor is familiar with the system and the other is not, the former could exploit this to effectively lock in his/her preferred version with the greatest of ease.
Under the current rules, an editor familiar with the system (and mindful of the three-revert rule) might use a sock/meat puppet to revert to his/her preferred version. If the opposing editor is unfamiliar with the system, he/she might simply continue reverting (and likely end up with a warning), and the page probably will be protected as whichever version the administrator happens to encounter.
Under the proposed rules, an editor familiar with the system (and aware of the impending protection) could use a sock/meat puppet to revert to his/her non-preferred version. If the opposing editor is unfamiliar with the system, he/she will see no reason to do anything, so the deceptive editor can simply stand back and wait for an administrator to revert back to his/her preferred version and protect the page. —David Levy06:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think David that we will have to agree to disagree, let others read this exchange and decide for themselves if on balance this proposed change would indeed encourage a significant level of sockpuppet behaviour of the type you suggest it might. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "another revert for free" kind of makes sense. Consider the simple two-party case where one person is seeking to make a contentious change to a previously stable article. The person seeking the contentious change gets to make the initial edit, and then revert to it three times. The person opposing the contentious change merely gets three reverts. The proposed change would indeed see the person opposing the contentious change get "another revert for free", thus resulting in the article being protected on the stable version rather than the contentious version. Hesperian03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The three-revert rule does not mean that editors are entitled to revert a page three times per day. The longstanding logic is that if an edit contradicts consensus, there should be more than one editor willing to revert it. —David Levy04:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I merely observed that TenOfAllTrades' revert-count-based argument might just as well lead one to support PBS's proposal, as to opposing it. That doesn't mean I endorse the argument, and it certainly doesn't mean I think 3RR is an entitlement. Hesperian06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. PBS' proposal actually makes it worse, in the case of a fringe editor inserting dodgy material despite the objections of more than one other editor (per David Levy). As long as at least two people do agree that the fringe editor's additions are contentious, then they will always be able to bring the article back to a stable state without tripping over 3RR. At that point, either the reverts stop with the article on the stable original version, or the fringe editor gets blocked for a firm 3RR violation. Either way, the status quo is restored. On the other hand, PBS' proposal means that the fringe editor can place his material four times, be reverted by two other editors a similar total of four times, and can then go and have an admin revert his fringe edits back in and protect the page. Not good. It means that the edit warrior with the load of contentious material has no disincentive to edit war, because he'll be able to recruit an admin at his leisure to revert to and protect his preferred revision. I grant that things are a bit murkier when there is only one editor on each side of the dispute — but in the absence of third-party input, how can we be sure that the new edits are actually problematic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case the page would not be protected, the transgressor of the 3RR would be blocked. At the moment if the "fringe editor" knows how to game the system they will time their third revert and immediately put in a request for the page to be protected. If the "administrators normally protect the current version," the the fringe editor ends up as the fringe version protected without the need to breach 3RR. This is one consideration that encourages otherwise level headed editors to revert immediately, rather than discussing it on the talk page. Another reason is that often one party will not engage in conversation on the talk page unless their version has been reverted. This proposal will not solve that issue, but at least it would slow down reverts by removing one stress that causes them to be made quickly. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Edit wars lead to extremely confusing situations. An admin who decides to protect a non-current version is taking the risk of making a mistake. In most cases that risk is not worth running. When I see that an admin has protected a non-current version it makes me nervous (unless it is vandalism or BLP), since I wonder if there will be a good enough explanation. If the admin winds up protecting the Wrong Version, this can be rectified by a discussion on the article talk page, followed by an {{editprotected}} request if consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be no more confusing that the current rule which usually ends up with the current version kept in place, which tends to encourage reverting. See WP:RM where it works without a hitch. If this was to be done then you would need to be nervous if the administrator protected the most recent version of the page. The administrator always ends up protecting the Wrong Version, it is just this way it would not encourage editors in dispute to try to get their preferred version to the top of the stack, instead it would be in their interests to have the second one in the stack. This will tend to dampened down article edit wars instead of encouraging them which is what the current practice does. Your suggestion of "this can be rectified by a discussion on the article talk page, followed by an {{editprotected}} request if consensus is found." is precisely why the current protection of the most recent version encourages edit warring, because often there are so few editors involved in the dispute there is no possibility of the current version being replaced through the mechanism you are suggesting hence the tendency to "get your retaliation in first" and try to make sure that it is your version that is protected which you opponent colleague has to show there is no consensus for. It is precisely this sort of combination that encourages edit warring, which would be dissipated if it was the last but one version that was restored before the page was protected. -- PBS (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been tempted to do this myself before reporting to RfPP when discussion hasn't been forthcoming - I think this probably happens more than people care to admit and that this is a sensible step forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, though any kind of automatic rule is going to be gamed - admins have to be trusted to think, and to judge in a given situation who's working for the good of the encyclopedia and who's pushing a point.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although like Kotniski I think it could be gamed, and it may not work effectively in a multi-editor pile up (page moves tend to be binary, either it's called Foo or its called Bar, so it's easy to see what is the move and what is the revert), it is certainly worth a try to see if it has the effect of damping edit warring. It may just have the effect of damping reports of edit warring.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, it's an issue, and I've seen it, but this can be gamed either way. (The proposed change can be gamed by waiting for one's "opponent" to revert, and then rushing to RFPP.) Gaming can usually be figured out after the fact, when things have calmed down, and when done chronically, it is an appropriate issue for an RfC/U, etc. The "wrong version" template is adequate to alert readers, and beyond that we need to realize that the sky does not fall when the wrong version is what is displayed. This feeling of it's absolutely awful if the wrong version is allowed to stay is actually the misjudgment at the core of a huge percentage of all conduct problems that we have. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(The proposed change can be gamed by waiting for one's "opponent " to revert, and then rushing to RFPP.)" That is the whole point, and in such a scenario this change would have to be judged a success because such gaming calculations has stopped at least one revert ("'One' said Slightly") -- and having rushed to an WP:RFPP if it is refused and the editor then reverts (s)he leave herself/himself open to claims that (s)he is knowingly revert warring. If it stops one in the chain then is not the other person going to make similar calculations and perhaps not make their revert? ("'Two' said Slightly").-- PBS (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tryptofish sums it up well... I agree that using the "wrong version" template is the way to go... it clearly acknowledges (and with appropriate humor) that the protection is not an endorsement of the protected text... and that the protecting admin understands that someone is going to be unhappy, no matter which version is protected. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThis is supposed to be a joke. Let's not make it a reality Current policy language is reasonable. Protection is about ending edit wars, not participating in them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No its is not intended as a joke. Why do you think it might be? No one has suggested that the current wording is not reasonable. What is being proposed is wording to help to end reverts sooner than currently happens. The wording is intended to reduce reverting and inadvertent administrator participation in some disputes, in what way do you think the wording encourages more participation in a dispute? -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this, you have misunderstood. The caption on the image is referring to the image itself, which is in fact intended as a joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The present wording is good enough and is impartial as soon as an admin start listening to one side of an edit war they lose their neutrality. Mo ainm~Talk20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change would no more have administrators listening to one side or the other than currently happens. If you think it would, I would be interested to hear how. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At various times, I've protected on the current version, a version prior to the dispute, a randomly-selected version, and even on a new version that I knew both parties would find unacceptable. It's all a matter of looking at the dispute and picking the best method to get people to discuss rather than edit-war. --Carnildo (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone focuses far too much on "the parties" - it's as if we're voluntarily agreeing to be held hostage by belligerent agenda pushers, and the quality of a "solution" depends on the resulting behaviour and level of satisfaction of "the parties". Never mind the parties, think about the encyclopedia and its readers - use the opportunity of a difference of opinions to make a reasoned judgement about what the encyclopedia should be saying. Ideally (obviously subject to time constraints) an admin should not be blindly locking any version of a page, but should be acting in the interests of the encyclopedia, including initiating proper and focussed discussion between "the parties" and making it clear what kinds of arguments and insinuations will and will not be tolerated in that discussion, and ensuring that discussion and the implementation of its results are not disrupted, and good contributors are not driven out by bad ones.--Kotniski (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in implementation, support in spirit This suffers from the Princess Bride syndrome. I think Kotniski makes some good points here. I wouldn't be opposed to more strongly recommending reversion to a version before the edit war, if a clean one exists. Gigs (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's almost never a right version, rolling back to the previous edit simply means that the person who's made the request (for whatever reason, and second guessing that is hard) gets put off editing because they feel that they're being punished for requesting the protection. As it stands now, the guidance is imperfect, but functions fine in the vast majority of cases. GedUK22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + alt approach
The existing and proposed wordings apparently contain the identical provision ("administrators may also revert"), the difference is better grammar.
The issue is to reduce gaming and jockeying for the "last revision left standing" without creating more scope for newer games or placing it in the hands of the first admin, in a position of "judge and jury between versions" (except for obvious vandalism etc). I'd do it a different way, by adding something with this effect:
"If the protecting administrator considers the protected version is much less likely to represent consensus or quality than some other history revision, then he/she may present any concerns and request a consensus of uninvolved users at the appropriate noticeboard to revert to and protect another suitable revision instead."
While not perfect, it provides a minimally gameable route to have protection end up on "the better version" more often than not, if there is a real concern by the protecting admin, but without harming any "balance of power", allowing tendentiousness by involved users, or opening routes for abuse. It's likely the grounds for such a request would be clear from the page history.
Of course the page editors could agree this by consensus, but a lot of the time they are unable to agree. This allows the closing admin a way to bypass that problem and appeal quickly to uninvolved users if there is a reason (in his/her judgment as an admin but without affecting his/her neutrality) why it might be better to revert to and protect some other than the latest revision. FT2(Talk | email)06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive use of full protection
I'm finding that full protection is being used rather excessively. To me, full protection should only be used when there's serious problems such as extensive edit-warring by multiple parties. Instead it's being used when there's wars between two users or when the wars are not particularly fierce, or for other strange reasons. One important point is that they're often protected for a very long time. Category:Wikipedia protected pages shows some of these issues. Why was Herbert Sandler full protected for a whole six months? The admin said "BLP semi-protection" but actually it was full. Wendy Starland was protected for three months with reason "Excessive vandalism: Protection requested per the subject". I can't see where in the policy it says article subjects are allowed to request full protection of their articles. That article has been edited by someone called User:Wendystarland and contains serious problems - primarily POV and sourcing. Look at for example these series of edits and these by an IP. Write a POV piece and then ask for protection so noone can remove the spam. What that article needs is not protection but serious editing. I think there needs to be a culture shift where admins use full protection more conservatively. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protection is done very much on a case-by-case basis. If there are specific cases where it is being used inappropriately the first thing you should do is contact the admin who applied the protection and inform them of your concerns. You can also request unprotection or reduction of protection at WP:RFPP. If you have specific edits you would like to make while an article is protected you can add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and detail your edits there. If they are uncontroversial and specific an admin can make the changes on your behalf. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request from 82.244.224.47, 14 November 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
In March 2009, the New York Post wrote that the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained emails sent by Pelosi's staff which requested that the United States Air Force (USAF) provide specific aircraft - a Boeing 757 - for Pelosi to use for taxpayer-funded travel.[49][50][51]
The requested aircraft in citations 49-51 was a G-5 Gulfstream. Citations 49-51 do not mention a Boeing 757 aircraft. Please correct this.
Not done This is not the page to request that edits be made to other pages. If you would like those pages edited you may make your {{editsemiprotected}} request on that articles talk page. Inka88802:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-coded the table in the lead of the page that displays all of the different locks and what they mean. I don't know about you, but when I previously viewed the page, the table cut the lead into two parts and overlapped some of the text. In addition, it was rather large, and being nestled in the center was quite intrusive. I've gone ahead and aligned it to the right and made it the same width as the Five Pillars navigation box that is right above it. Just wanted to throw this out there in case someone was particularly fond of the previous scheme. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs02:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add Smithsonian to External Links
Just a request to add this external link to jellyfish. Thank you!
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
The article correctly points out that Villa, hit by nine dum-dum bullets, died instantly. This is confirmed by his biographer, Friedrich Katz, in his The Life and Times of Pancho Villa (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998) p.766. In such circumstances there is plainly no possibility Villa uttered the last words famously ascribed to him, and given again on this page without source citation: 'He is reported to have died saying "Don't let it end like this. Tell them, I said something."'Katz, certainly, makes no mention of them.
Can we get rid of this canard, or, perhaps better, edit to point out that the supposed "famous last words" may be entertaining, but they are mythical. Mikedash (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(more of a pink but it's called "Padlock-purple.svg") or 
(Padlock-violet.svg). I want to know so I can make it the same on Commons. If neither is in use yet, which one should we go with? Rocket000 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Not done This is not the page to request that edits be made to other pages. If you would like those pages edited you may make your {{editsemiprotected}} request on that articles talk page. Inka888 02:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
