Should this page be unprotected   Unprotect Augusto Pinochet  See TalkAugusto Pinochet Veriverily isnt explaining his objections to text he keeps reverting over and over again   The page is already protected Is this a request for unprotection   Yes please unprotect this page   Sorry but in spite of your efforts I dont think the discussion has reached enough of a resolution right now to avoid a resumption of the revert war as soon as the page is unprotected   Veriverily only chooses to lodge personal attacks against me as long as he manages to censor any facts that he feels might reflect negatively on the US by means of a page protection There cannot be a discussion unless the page protection is lifted If we have to wait for Veriverily the page might as well be protected permanently   Refer to the large number of people who have put effort into this article  Ed Poor Cadr Cantus Eloquence  while  seeks to sabotage our efforts at working together and impose his own agenda  The Talk pages are available so one can see  is lying  Although I have aired my frustration with  several times there the issues have also been much discussed by me and others ie only yeah right  As Cadr said on this very page   Agree with VV A lot of constructive work was being done on the page the problems are almost enitrely down to the user he mentions in ref to   As soon as the protection is off  will continue his activities    Unprotect Augusto Pinochet Cadr and Veriverily refuse to back down one inch and no one else seems to be paying any attention Is this page just going to be protected indefinitely    See brief discussion below and for the patient that at TalkAugusto Pinochet  It tells a very different story    To summarize it is  who refuses to budge and alter one word of the intro he wrote  All other parties have written several draft intros each to try to accommodate objections and concerns   dismisses these efforts as partisan bickering and bullshit    Veriverilys comments are misleading at best All other parties according to Veriverily are the users Cadr EdPoor AstroNomer and himself voting in the minority in the most recent round of polling His preferred version does not have a consensus behind it This was really the winning position in the poll Yes it should be asserted in both the intro paragraph and the CIA role in coup section and not marked as controversial   Consensus had been reached before  started trolling the poll was started afterwards and brought in random buddies of   The poll voters he cites consist mostly of users who had no role in editing or contributing to the page and visibly no understanding of the issues and were voting ideologically  Even so the margin was only  far from overpowering  Furthermore one does not vote on whether to be neutral     I wasnt  brought in to vote Nor was I voting ideologically rather my vote was determined by my familiarity with the issues Perhaps instead of attacking anyone who voted differently from him V V should present more compelling arguments    Who am I attacking  And saying I should present more compelling arguments supports my supposition that you were not aware of the talk of these issues because if so you would have seen the thousands and thousands of words arguing these very points     I wasnt  brought in to vote I wasnt voting ideologically and I have made minor contributions to the article    Regardless of who the poll may have brought in I think part of the purpose of listing this page at WikipediaRequests for comment where it has appeared quite regularly for a while is to bring in opinions from members of the community Regardless of whose random buddies they are Nor do I see why the fact t