Forum:Am I being an edit-hitlerbear here?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Am I being an edit-hitlerbear here?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6310 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

A while back, I turned Scooby Doo from a pile of crap into a pile of more coherent crap. It seems to be getting rather a lot of edits. Many of these are from IPs and many detract from the way I've written the article. (I've been trying to keep things faintly coherent - for example, I'd been trying, until recently, to stop the gang ever being anything but cartoon characters.)

Am I being oversensitive with my edits to other peoples' additions here? I don't want people to feel I'm trying to impose myself too much on the article. At the same time I don't want it to have what happened to List of weapons that don't exist, but should happen to it on a smaller scale.

Advice? --Wyattj 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well it is a wiki that anyone can edit, but I fully sympathise with you about having control over your work. What you could do is go through the edits from the IPs and try and make it yours again. --—Braydie 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things: put the article in your watchlist, so you can track any edits. If the IP edits are really stupid, just revert. If they are catastrophically stupid, denounce vandalism in Ban Patrol.~-- herr doktor needsAbrain  [scream!] 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You could just do what I do: Write crappy articles, put them on your watchlist, and then do nothing when people edit them because the article was crap to begin with. Hope my method helps :) --Sir Zombiebaron 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Or do what I do; stick to subjects so hopelessly obscure that very few people will ever find them, and the few that do are just stopping to gas up on their trip from the Neemol nebula to Varclon VII. That way "your" pages will hardly ever get messed with, and most of the messing that does occur will, inevitably, improve the page. It's a plan with no flaws. None, I say! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On Uncyc there are definitely more writer privileges than on Wikipedia. In general, if an article was originally written with a certain tone or a single consistent idea, edits that break that consistency are pretty poor form. If the disputed edits have elements that could work in the article but lack the right "feel," you might want to try to incorporate them better. If they're just not consistent at all and only add randomness at the expense of the article as a whole, don't feel bad about nixing them. Just don't get too militant about it - there's a line between quality control and only-my-humor-is-allowed arrogance. —rc (t) 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You've actually managed to crystallise the reason for me posting fairly neatly there - I'm acutely aware of that line and I'm not sure whether I'm crossing it or not with Scooby Doo.--Wyattj 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any particular edits you're unsure about? I gave the history a quick look and it seems like most of the stuff contributed by IPs is pretty revertable, with a few exceptions like this (which you kept for the current version). —rc (t) 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's largely little things, but the one that made me ask for guidance was 67.184.40.241 changing Nasty to Shaggy and me changing it back.--Wyattj 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stalinbear say: if edit to your article suck, revert to good you must. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Or for no apparent reason you could edit the article Do you pick death or cake?...I dunno... --HP talk 06:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)