Thread:Csalv/@comment-31790818-20200704233730/@comment-31790818-20200708184111

Yoshi1219 wrote: Nopenop33 wrote:

Yoshi1219 wrote:

Nopenop33 wrote:

FANDOM Creeper wrote:

Yoshi1219 wrote: FANDOM Creeper wrote: Even if it has good intentions, it's still not allowed since the creator never permissed the information If it’s on a article that hasn’t been changed in years or months. Then it’s fine. Chances are, they’re not gonna come back to their articles. It. Was. Unpermissed. Therefore, not allowed. If I went inactive, I wouldn't want people messing with my stuff if I never said they could.

The creator must give express permission. Sorry Yosh, it's true. And how do you intend on getting said permission if they aren't around or responsive? You don't and therefore you don't edit. It's simple logic.

I suggested awhile ago we protect inactive pages in case there'd be vandalism but we eventually decided it was perhaps too much effort. Maybe we should consider it again(?) So then we'd just leave the long since abandoned and/or incomplete pages as it is? What sense would that make exactly? Well, it's fair. If the creator ever does come back and say whatever they need to say, then things may change. If a page is incomplete, it's incomplete, and other people are not allowed to mess with it.