Except to point out while if it were in your userspace, while technically it belongs to the community I don't feel people would be justified in editing it except if they felt what you wrote was somehow exceptionally harmful or misleading. Agne Cheese/ Wine 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I agree as well. If it is in the Wikipedia name space then it's fair game. Raymond Arritt 18:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I agree. If you want it to be "your" essay you can try putting it in your user space, but even then WP:USER makes it clear that your user space still belongs to the community. So what to do? Allow anyone to make changes to essays, even if it could be argued that this changes the meaning of the essay? Permit the original author to have special rights when it comes to edits to an essay? Is there a recommended course of actin to take in these situations? Or, since I came across this proposal, simply admit no one except me is interested in this essay, let alone my suggestion about quotation practices, & move this page to my own userspace where I can flip the bit so that non-Admins cannot edit it? - llywrch 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC) If it's in general project space then anyone is fully within their rights to edit it, even if that causes a change in meaning.
However, & probably more significantly, an edit war over how to deal with typos & misspellings in quotations does seem to qualify for WP:LAME, so I'd rather not push the matter to a 3RR incident (he has made two reversions to my one). If we consider the intent of WP:OWN, it could argued that I have no right to object to this change without creating a consensus to support my view that the original version of this passage is better. Whether or not my belief is "intellectually dishonest", I believe replacing this statement with another sppresses one opinion on this matter there is nothing keeping the other editor from writing his own essay on this matter. Another user wants to change this passage becuse he believes them to be "intellectually dishonest", & for some reason believes this essay is the equivalent of policy, while I believe his edits violate the point of this essay - which was written as some thoughts about how to interpret policy.ĪFAIK, this is the only place on Wikipedia where this issue is raised. The dispute is over a couple of sentences concerning fixing obvious typos & misspellings in a quoted source. I'm faced with a possible edit war over an essay that I wrote about a year ago, Wikipedia: These are not original research.