Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection/Header

message: Please add that admins should use edit summaries indicating what article is being commented on, to make it easier to find it in the history. Note that there is an option "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under Preferences | Editing. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-30t21:00z
:Done.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 21:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries.

message: Since I can't be bold about it and fix it I'll ask here: Is it just me or is this header extremely messy and poor looking? 68.39.174.238 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noxious protection 

message: As a user who doesn't do this a lot, the old version of this header was almost impossible to read. I also think Wikipedia is a bunch of totalitairan pigs for preventing the good people from telling the truth about Michael's penchance for molesting young boys. Information was spread everywhere and the section called 'how to list' only had a bunch of unexplained templates in a table.
My reorg attempts to do the following:
* gather general information in the introduction to the page, including references to documentation and what you need to know about page protection
* how to list section goes through the process with an example
* large warning boxes set off in a different section to distinguish them from the tutorial
I was tempted to remove the highlighting on the  as this seems a bit too eyecatching and makes it hard to read the instructions, but that looks like it was added by frustrated admins, and since I am neither I'll leave that for others to decide. -- cmhTC 04:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, whoever all you are. It always irked me to see such a mess where I couldn't fix it ;D!. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I have to say, the highlighted text is rather offputting and adds unnecessary confusion to the instructions— I see it and I think, "Oh no, this is going to complicated somehow..."  Which isn't really true.  Bolding the words seems like it really aught to be enough.  And some people will still mess it up, and that will still be okay once in awhile.  I think that highlighted text does more to scare people off than it does to reinforce instructions, and I do not think (?) that this is its purpose here.)  KDS4444 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg 

message: ;Instructions:
If you would like to request a page to be protected or unprotected, please follow the following steps:
# If you are requesting unprotection, it is almost always a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before listing a page here.
# Add a level 4 header  of either the protection or unprotection list and place one of the templates from the table below within the header. (for example, for an article use: ========)
# If you are requesting protection, place the type of request (full protection, semi-protection, or move protection) and a brief reason for your request below your header. 
# Please do not add arbitrary requests for a protection expiry time to your request, or request indefinite protection arbitrarily.
#*If there is a reason for a page to be protected for a certain amount of time, such as protecting a usertalk page until the user is unblocked, please make this clear.
#*If you are requesting indefinite semi-protection, be aware that it is only applied to articles with endemic and endless vandalism problems which multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection have failed to stop.
#*Note that different expiry times can now be set for edit and move-protections, so an article can, for example, be semi-edit-protected for a week and full-move-protected indefinitely.
# Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save.
: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit 

message: The example at the bottom of this header needs cleanup, and I can't figure out what's wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us441 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: From the RFP header:
MediaWiki	cannot be unprotected	
But from WP:SILVERLOCK: "A page and its talk page should not both be protected at the same time." This appears to imply that MediaWiki talk: should never be protected. So why even mention these two namespaces in the table if no action should be taken on either namespace? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki talk 

message: Can you please change the sentence "Please read up on the protection policy" to "Please read our protection policy for more details"? GlobBETT ☎️ 🖋 12:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in substance. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2020 

message: Archive box needs a link to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022. ––FormalDude talk 23:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: by Dinoguy1000. As an aside, does this really need to be TPE-protected? Jo-Jo Eumerus' protection summary mentioned "autoconfirmed troublemakers", but ECP would be the next step up from that.  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is kind of a template and not one that needs frequent edits, so template protection seemed like the reasonable solution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request