Wikipedia talk:FAITH

Unprotect or categorise, or both
Basically, I find it superfluous to protect a redirect indefinitely just because it was vandalised once, especially since it was vandalised by an anonymous user. It probably ought to be semi-protected. In any case, if it is not, I suggest that this redirect should be added by an administrator to Category:Shortcuts that are English words. (Faith is an English word, right?)

If it is unprotected, on the other hand, I am offering to do it myself (although the administrator is likely to do it anyway). Waltham, The Duke of 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The very template you added said, "To request that the page itself be protected or unprotected, please make a request at requests for page protection instead.". That would be a faster and easier way to ask for the page to be unprotected. I unprotected it here, however; you can edit it now. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I asked for the page to be categorised; I also seized the opportunity to ask for its unprotection. In any case, not only has the page not been unprotected, but its protection (and probable subsequent unprotection and re-protection) does not appear anywhere; the log is completely blank. I cannot explain it, and I should like to know what has happened (before going to Requests for unprotection, obviously). Waltham, The Duke of 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - I'm pretty sure that I've fixed both issues, though if not let me know. :) Nihiltres { t .l } 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything is just fine. As far as the logs are concerned, I think I have heard somewhere that it is a relatively recent development for protections to be recorded there. I do not understand this, but I am content for now. Waltham, The Duke of 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)