2,743
edits
User talk:Kogoro/2: Difference between revisions
m
→I disagree with this rationale
(→I disagree with this rationale: Response) |
|||
| Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
::[http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Mail&diff=prev&oldid=93477 My first edit] is over a year before [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MAGNEDETH/new_evolutions&diff=prev&oldid=337544 yours], if you want to talk about how long people have been here. Would you like to try my [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Raijinili&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 number of mainspace contributions] instead? Either way, it's an ad hominem argument, and you haven't actually addressed my point: There's no reason to lock topics not in danger of vandalism and which wouldn't harm the Wiki much even if they were vandalized. "It's the way we've been doing it" is as good a reason for this as it is for, say... y'know, there are just way too many ways that sentence can end, it's ridiculous. | ::[http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=Mail&diff=prev&oldid=93477 My first edit] is over a year before [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MAGNEDETH/new_evolutions&diff=prev&oldid=337544 yours], if you want to talk about how long people have been here. Would you like to try my [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Raijinili&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 number of mainspace contributions] instead? Either way, it's an ad hominem argument, and you haven't actually addressed my point: There's no reason to lock topics not in danger of vandalism and which wouldn't harm the Wiki much even if they were vandalized. "It's the way we've been doing it" is as good a reason for this as it is for, say... y'know, there are just way too many ways that sentence can end, it's ridiculous. | ||
::And I stated why I'm doing this: because it indicates a trend of unnecessary preemptive locking. --[[User:Raijinili|Raijinili]] 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | ::And I stated why I'm doing this: because it indicates a trend of unnecessary preemptive locking. --[[User:Raijinili|Raijinili]] 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::What reason is there to NOT have it protected? Any edits made to the page by anyone other then an administrator would either be spelling corrections (which aren't currently needed), or redlink fixing (which also isn't currently needed). The only time it will be updated will be when administration decides to re-open nominations, and as such, only an administrator should be editing the page. With the page protected, this makes it impossible for anyone to make a mistake. | |||
:::Just to make it perfectly clear, we are discussing whither or not a ''currently unused'' page should be protected from edits. That is, a page that needs no editing currently, and further, ''should not'' be edited currently. If you ''still'' see a reason why this needs to be unprotected, then by all means, let us know. --[[user:Jioruji_Derako|<font color="#237d00"> '''J'''ïörüjï '''Ð'''ērākō.'''>'''</font>]]<small>[[user talk:Jioruji Derako|<font color="#237d00">''.cнаt'''''^'''</font>]]</small> 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||