Revision as of 04:32, 18 September 2007 edit Kim Bruning (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 21,008 edits →Page is protected. Page has been edited while protected. No protection reason provided here.: anyone opposed to unprotecting? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:00, 18 September 2007 edit undo Pmanderson (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 62,756 edits →Page is protected. Page has been edited while protected. No protection reason provided here. Next edit →
Line 647: : Xaosflux did post a rationale on my user talk page, but that basically went "do as you see fit", so I guess we ''could'' just unprotect and duck and cover, simply because that is the default action to take. Does anyone have a good reason ''not'' to do that? If so, please speak up now! --[[User:Kim Bruning\|Kim Bruning]] 04:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC) ::Works for me. Since the dispute appears to revolve around policy adoption by proposal, which was a flaming failure for [[WP:ATT]], why don't we just renumber it to #6, and condense the description to "it almost never works" with the category-naming as an example where it did. [[User:Pmanderson\|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson\|PMAnderson]]</small> 18:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance: Difference between revisions