Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.51.43.121 (talk) at 05:28, 24 November 2009 (→‎Current requests for protection). 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.

    Template:Avocent

    Temporary Protection vandalism Repeated addition of images to deface the page by an anonymous source. Requesting lock to prevent anonymous users from modifying the page. - 203.51.43.121 (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism by IP hopping anons. Marek.69 talk 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Request semi protection, high levels of recent vandalism-Reconsider the static (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Piedmont Hills High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection Vandalism. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive IP vandalism. FYI -- this is the page that "Allahu Akhbar" -- shouted by the Fort Hood shooter -- redirects to. Vandals keep on deleting material that reflects its past usage.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's just one IP, and I'm not sure if they are good faith edits. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been more than one editor, and how a blanking of a referenced section w/a RS footnote can -- twice in an hour, even after a warning, without any edit summary or communication, be good faith escapes me.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard disk drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Excessive IP vandalism. Airplaneman talk 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary full protection vandalism, Excessive vandalism: IP's and users reporting Death of Jonas Brothers. Marek.69 talk 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Monster Ball Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection for a longer duration this time. Continuous IP addition of crap set list, tour dates, opening acts - In general total disruption of the article. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Some of the recently deleted concert dates appear to be supported by here and [1] found using a quick google search, so it appears that all IP edits are not bad, just in need of a proper source. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ledford Middle School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protection. Repetive and constant vandalism by socks. For more info, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piper987, including the archived SPIs. Singularity42 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Also, it's usually considered bad form to protect an article while it's at AFD unless there's tons of vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: (ec) To Singularity42: Could you clarify what it is about the edits that constitute vandalism? They appear on the face to be good-faith edits, although poorly formatted. The same applies to the edits by now-blocked user Piper987 (talk · contribs). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs in question: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] (not including edits, such as removing AfD tags). Sure, initally these could have been considered good faith edits, but Piper987 was repeatedly cautioned until blocked (this list does not include acts of other types of disruptive editing): [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. Piper987 then continued making the edits through socks, those socks were blocked, and is now making the edits through more socks. So, not obvious vandalism at first, but was after the user chose to ignore the comments and continue making the edits. However, that's just to answer the question. I agree with Beeblebrox that unless the vandalism gets worse, it should not be protected while the AfD is going on. Singularity42 (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection vandalism. A8UDI 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:31, 24 November 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.

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

    This link is fully protected to prevent the article from being created. Wikipedia asked a user to discuss the situation (see order here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malia_Obama#Request_for_comments_again_about_this_redirect ) The discussion has been completed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive73#Malia_Obama

    The result was that the majority of comments was to allow the article (so unprotect). Some people were opposed. With an AFD, a lack of consensus is default to keep the article so we must keep the article (especially since there was a majority keep).

    There are many good reasons for the article, some of which are discussed here

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malia_Obama#New_situation and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_Obama_article

    As far as Malia just being a daughter, there are quite a few articles on reliable sources about her with mere passing mention of her father, Barack. Furthermore, Bo, who hasn't done a thing except eat dog chow, has an article just because of his family relationship. This article was speedily kept in an AFD showing that even someone with only a relationship gets an article and Malia has more than a relationship to be notable, but actual articles. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rex_(dog)

    Wikipedia policy forbids the naming of children if they are known just because of their relationship to a famous person. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names Since Malia is mentioned in Wikipedia, this shows that she is notable and her name not censored because of non-notability.

    Please abide by this discussion (Wikipedia ANI told a user to have the discussion there) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive73#Malia_Obama , unprotect the page and allow people to edit it. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not unprotected There's no consensus that I can see to remove the redirect and have a separate article. The AfD default keep position doesn't apply in this case, this isn't a deletion discussion (that's already happened). When there's a consensus that this page can be unprotected, then it can be unprotected. GedUK  10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD discussion happened closer to two years ago than one and she had no articles on her at the time and the President was merely a candidate among a dozen (dime a dozen).
    • Comment: I've engaged in a number of the discussions referenced, and I as dissected in them, there is no clear consensus against a separate article (though, there are a few defenders of the current status quo that would disagree with me). A series of different editors tried to create a separate article from the redirect and were rebuffed (which led to the page protection). Then there was a Malia Obama (2009) that someone else created to get around the protection last month, and there will likely be other attempts by casual editors to do so again and again, which is a sign of the actual consensus. Hundreds of users[15] search for the page for Malia everyday, so keeping this as a redirect will be a constant uphill battle.--Milowent (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no clear consensus either way, in which case the redirect stays. GedUK  14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. "No consensus" does not default to "create", and we don't allow articles simply to stop people attempting to bypass policy. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are all the reasons to end protection and the only reason to keep protect is because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" and want to prevent it from appearing. We allow all articles then AFD the one's that don't qualify, not resort to tricks and wikilawyering to keep it off. Again, all the reasons point to have the article/unprotect and the only reason cited for protection is that Malia only a daughter and cannot be notable but the President's dog did nothing and is notable. That is hypocracy. Please unprotect it. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This page has been protected for years, so I'd say there's a fair chance the old vandals have moved on. Anons are making helpful suggestions, but are unable to implement them on their own. This time of year, both good-faith and bad-faith interest in the article may increase--but it ought to be hoped that good-faith edits will predominate. (Disclosure: Because A) I don't suppose this request will be too controversial; B) I suspect the original protection is no longer fresh in the memories of the protecting admins; and C) I'd like to expedite the process, just in case any recent anons lose interest soon, I've skipped the customary step of asking the protecting admins individually, although I would be glad to go back and take that step if it still seems prudent.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rather you asked Bishonan first, as his protection note did rather imply it should be short term, but I don't want to second guess. GedUK  09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me, and done. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unprotected Marking so the bot will sweep this. If you don't get an answer from Bishonen in a while, ask again and we'll unprotect. tedder (talk) 04:57, 24 November 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

    On the Origin of Species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary full protection vandalism, The article is being targeted by IP hopping vandal. Marek.69 talk 02:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 hour, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Regular target for IP/new user vandalism. Pinkadelica♣ 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Iran-Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Long-term semi-protection - The article is on an daily basis falling victim to constant bias and disputes and throughout time, I notice constant and periodic changes that are clearly based on favoritism that have no references and hold no historical support whatsoever.Rezashah4 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Correct article name is Iran–Iraq War. — ξxplicit 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. — ξxplicit 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Indefinite create-protection, See deletion log. Please salt to prevent further re-creation. ukexpat (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation protected — ξxplicit 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Long-term semi-protection - since the last protection expired, the vandalism has resumed. Virtually all of the history is vandalism and reverts. Connormah (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of six months. Tiptoety talk 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, IPs. I've really seen a recent jump in vandalism in these articles in the past few days. ς ح д r خ є 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Too much of it recently. . South Bay (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of one week. Tiptoety talk 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Voices: WWE The Music, Vol. 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Over the last few months there has been IP's constantly changing "Age Against the Machine" to "Rage Against the Machine" (AATM are a tribute band to RATM). Despite a warning stating that the bands name is AATM and a link to the band's website confirming they did the music for this CD, IP's keep changing it. The vandalism stopped for awhile when the page was protected, but it soon started again after the protection expired. A long term (at least a few months) of protection is requested. TJ Spyke 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. SlimVirgin 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Some IPs have begun adding that Stuart has died, neglecting to add any validation through sourcing. Please add semi-protection to discourage violating WP:BLP. . Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Semi-protect. On November 11 (twice) and November 13 (once) large amounts of vandalism took place from more than 1 unregistered user (two different IP addresses). The vandalism is vulgar and is very obvious, from the moment a person reviews these entries. The article has been reverted to the previous August 11 version that was free of vandalism. A permanent semi-protection setting is requested, as this article will continue to be relevant into the foreseeable future and should not be subject to such aggressive and vulgar vandalism. Also, full deletion of the three previous vandal entries is requested. Mullen boston (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Not enough activity for semi-protection, but I'll keep an eye on it. Not sure I see a need to delete those edits either. Is there a BLP issue? SlimVirgin 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection, Confused edit warring. An IP I strongly suspect is a Sock puppet of numerous banned users is refusing to take his changes/reverts to the talk page "Because he reverted what he saw as changes" but sought not to discuss them. This has been going on slowly for a while now and I’m a little confused about it. Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Looks like a genuine content dispute so s-protection wouldn't be appropriate, unless it really is a banned user, but I'd need more information before I could judge that. SlimVirgin 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Long-term semi-protection vandalism. This article continues to see false episode summaries created, it needs to be protected from edits by anonymous users for at least four months. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. It wouldn't let me do it for four months for some reason. If you need an extra month at the end, give me a shout. SlimVirgin 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection. IPs return to remove the disambig links from the page, also to blank sourced negative information about the subject. Dayewalker (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined, IP warned. Use that route first please GedUK  22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sturgis Charter Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Several IP vandals acting in concert (at least a few from the school itself). Too many edits to easily revert. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by Zzuuzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). GedUK  22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection vandalism, Due to intensive middle-school type vandalism, two to three weeks of protection would help the article get past this term's project period. Thanks if you can assist. HarryZilber (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection Heavy IP-vandalism resumed immediately the previous semi-protection expired. A few days more would be a good idea to allow for the feelings to calm down.Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Already protected. by NuclearWarfare for 2 weeks. JamieS93 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-spablock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection high-visiblity template. Team1525 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is not a "high-visibility template"; it is a redirect that was created today. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection high-visiblity template. Team1525 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This page has never been anything other than a redirect, so it is hardly "high-visibility." — Kralizec! (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-moablock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection high-visiblity template. Team1525 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is not a "high-visibility template"; it is a redirect that was created today. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Uw-mpoablock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    semi-protection high-visiblity template. Team1525 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined This is not a "high-visibility template"; it is a redirect that was created today. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary full protection vandalism, There currently seem to be vandals because of the controversy of the France - Ireland World Cup qualifier. chandler 18:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Temporary semi-protection dispute, We've got a dispute going between some IPs (at least two that migrate within a subnet) that revert without providing substantial reasons for the changes or discussing them on the talk page and Jessica Hoy, who has introduced useful updates, but with an overly rosy POV bias. We've had nothing but low level revert wars for days. I've reported the article to WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN to request help with cleaning up the POV bias in the otherwise better version of the article by Jessica Hoy, but nothing will be done if random IPs are continually reverting. I'd like to request a one month semi-protect, to give any editors from the noticeboards time to work on the page without being stymied by unresponsive IP editors. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I accidentally nominated for full protection; I meant semi. Apologies. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    semi-protection vandalism, The Maxwell Show was recently taken off the air and either fans or Maxwell himself is adding nonsense to his show's overview section; ie, "The Maxwell Show is no longer on the air. (begin falsehoods) This was a huge mistake, and WMMS will lose a ton of listeners. He was unceremoniously fired in November of 2009 after contract talks broke down. Rover, of Rover's Morning Glory, demanded more money, according to 19 Action News, resulting in budget cuts of the afternoon drive program which premiered on WMMS on April 19, 2004 (end falsehoods)." 128.156.10.80 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=327612848"