Thread:Hackey5/@comment-25407271-20171014213103/@comment-25407271-20171017141459

If there is a page that has been protected without a reason that it was a target page for vandalism, I will unprotect it. How cute of you to say that. You are doing exactly what you are opposing to in reverse only deemed because of your disagreement.

As this is already a small wiki, there is absolutely no reason that we need to protect pages. We only have so few pages in the first place. Protecting them will make us look lazy. User have to ask us for permission to edit a protected page? When were we so perfect? Protection should only be used for mass waves of vandalism for temporary periods of time. If this isn't the case, then the revision is in good faith. Undo the user's revision with an edit summary (or revert if it's obvious vandalism), and case closed. No such Wikia let alone page of it will ever be "perfect" at any time, regardless how old it is. Hence leaving pages unprotected creates a more inclusive environment, even if that means reverting to a previous version of the page here and there. Protecting pages do not make anyone look lazy, it makes people look in absolute control of their assets. Yes, I would rather have people coherently express the upcoming edit than to go and undo a stupid and unnecessary edit which was uncalled for. At the end of the day, you will have wasted more time looking at insignificant contributions and reverting people's work that you will find no point in keeping up with the articles anymore. Give me a solid reason why this contribution is important and why we should let it open for more people to add this stupid content around the wiki. I am so willing to revert an edit, type a mediocre summary, and spend time explain someone else's ridiculousness all at once, yes, count me in!

There are surely plenty of other outstanding wikis that don't protect their most popular oldest pages except for their home page, perhaps you may consider the implications of that. Some even continue leaving anons to contribute. Anything can be improved. The other "outstanding" wikis that do not protect their most popular oldest pages except for their home page (which is, by the way, meant to be locked) do not do it exactly because they are outstanding, and if they are that, they are also big. They can not let their activity drop, because they are "outstanding" and want to stay as such. Wikis like these are not a point of comparison to this one that is small in terms of everything minus the styling. I automatically discard this whole paragraph of yours because it is redundant.

I'd also like to cite WP:Be bold. Users are encouraged to go for it! Wikis grow, develop and improve over time when everyone adds facts, fixes grammar, and everything. Wikis also want users to edit, right? By protecting pages, you're inhibiting the rights of other users. If users see every "perfect page" locked for no justifiable reason, except for Map Packs or Level Editor, wouldn't they be discouraged or afraid to edit the work in progresses because they think would make a mistake in the eyes of those that protected everything else? Because I would be, and such instances have occurred in my experiences. I do not know where to start with this paragraph, it is so bland that I can not even myself. Let me see... "when everyone adds facts, fixes grammar, and everything"... is that not why we have a quality template splattered on top of the page? To show that there is in fact... nothing else to add unless the information is of extreme relevance, and nothing else to fix because it has been fully revised for mistakes? Are you taking in consideration what wiki this is? The only logical explanation a person could come up with to make the smallest contribution is if a update is released or if Robert says a word, in which case it is first evaluated, then articles are opened, and subsequently they get modified if there is anything worth adding.


 * No, pages would be blocked with a justifiable reason. The page is complete and has logically reviewed.
 * No, they would not be discouraged, the template has a statement which informs the person that only quality-tier additions are to be performed, they will review their own contribution even before they decide to press the edit button.
 * No, they would not make a mistake, they would ask a staff if what they want to add is relevant and both sides win, they get a private explanation and the page does not get a stupid revision.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous, rubbish, and full of banter. You are talking about 1.5, a phase of the game where it still was in its prime stage of development, when Stereo Madness was important and meaningful, it was the pilot. What are you even talking about? Also, yes, secret coins were added, but how much information could you type off the addition in the page? That it had three coins and the last one had the ending's layout modified? The most minor update the level has received since then was on the latest releases where the layout got once again nerfed for beginners, something that any of us could add without a wave of "contributors", also defeating your "lazy" statement, and emphasising on my above paragraph. You did not counter my argument, you went back to the past when there were actual reasons to keep everything open which I can not refute. I do underestimate the abilities of newer users, and so does everyone else.