Regarding Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised, I really don't know what to make of that article, but the version you created seemingly intentionally broke an external link by changing http: to ttp:, added an extraneous "5", etc. and those things plus your username led me to revert your edit. -- Curps 21:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really want to take a position on the editing dispute in that article, it's mostly the "ttp:" and "5" that were the problem, it made your edit  possibly look like vandalism. Regarding your username, the problem is the English meaning of Internet troll which perhaps doesn't have that meaning in Spanish, and this tends to arouse suspicion, although I wouldn't revert any of your edits only because of the username. Anyways, please take a little extra care with future edits and there shouldn't be any problem. -- Curps 22:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to you editing the article. Regarding freezing the article (protecting it), that's usually only done when a serious edit war erupts, which I hope won't happen. If the anonymous user violates the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, you can report that at WP:AN/3RR.
Actually, I took a closer look at the title and looked at Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity (without the "revised"). That article was deleted as recreation of previously deleted articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations). I'll investigate further. -- Curps 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policy that re-creations of previously deleted articles that were validly deleted (for instance via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) can be speedily deleted. One problem is that I don't know what the original title of this article was and under what circumstances it was deleted, because there were so many duplicates under various titles dating back to mid-October. I presume there was a valid AfD discussion and vote, and the anonymous user is re-creating the article to try to evade that.
I have left a message on the anonymous user's talk page asking him what the original title was so I can investigate the circumstances under which it was deleted. It could possibly be nominated for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. It would probably be legitimate to have a single article on this topic under an appropriate title, although this would naturally have to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view official policy.
-- Curps 23:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear TrollDeBatalla, I have no objection to the restoration of the article under the terms you describe. I have Lost Star of Myth and Time and would be prepared to contribute. --Ian Pitchford 23:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Just trying to keep things clean and editable...
As long as your statements are based on sources, I won't remove them. Just a friendly FYI: Protocol of Bitcoin was created for technical matters. The main Bitcoin article is just for general currency information. I removed your terminology section on that ground (too formal and not easily understood) and it wasn't well-source. Sorry for any trouble. Take care. --KyleLandas (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)