RationalWikiWiki talk:Editing your own article
From RationalWikiWiki
What if you edit your page with a NPOV? Does that count? --Ryan 01:09, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- What about correcting information? (Eg, my regaining crat, also, the name/age template thing.) Pinto's5150 01:15, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- In all cases if it is your own article page you should put comments on the talk page. Think of it as a mirror image of your user page on RationalWiki. There you can put all the good stuff you like about you and only you can edit it. (You can also make a user page here or on CP were only you can say whatever good stuff you like about yourself.) Here, however, the only page you can't edit is the article page about yourself. You can whine on the talk page, you can whinge on your user page, but you shouldn't edit your article page. --User:FalseFlagFlag Me 13:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- Seems easy enough, really. If you have "facts" to add, other editors will gladly gobble them up and poop them out on the article page, I'm sure. Is there anyway to add banners of some sort to remind us of this (and those who haven't picked up on the rule, especially)? Like, "If you actually are {{<s>luser</s>PAGENAME}} at RatWiki, please edit only the talk page. Thank you." And link it to this article. humanbe in 21:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- I don't see why we shouldn't be able to edit our own article, even when we are just adding general information. To the point: I don't see a reason for me to comply with this rule. --Ryan 01:25, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- Because that is the rule, here? Seems simple to me. If someone puts crap on the human article I don't like, I have to whinge on the talk page to get it removed. Seems fair, because otherwise I would turn the page into an oral sex delivering machine for myself. Surely you understand the concept behind the rule? Facts, if noted on talk pages, will be corrected as rapidly as possible by other editors, I'm sure. humanbe in 01:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- As I did after Tmtoulouse complained on his article's talk page. --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 03:12, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- Because that is the rule, here? Seems simple to me. If someone puts crap on the human article I don't like, I have to whinge on the talk page to get it removed. Seems fair, because otherwise I would turn the page into an oral sex delivering machine for myself. Surely you understand the concept behind the rule? Facts, if noted on talk pages, will be corrected as rapidly as possible by other editors, I'm sure. humanbe in 01:35, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- I don't see why we shouldn't be able to edit our own article, even when we are just adding general information. To the point: I don't see a reason for me to comply with this rule. --Ryan 01:25, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- Seems easy enough, really. If you have "facts" to add, other editors will gladly gobble them up and poop them out on the article page, I'm sure. Is there anyway to add banners of some sort to remind us of this (and those who haven't picked up on the rule, especially)? Like, "If you actually are {{<s>luser</s>PAGENAME}} at RatWiki, please edit only the talk page. Thank you." And link it to this article. humanbe in 21:25, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- In all cases if it is your own article page you should put comments on the talk page. Think of it as a mirror image of your user page on RationalWiki. There you can put all the good stuff you like about you and only you can edit it. (You can also make a user page here or on CP were only you can say whatever good stuff you like about yourself.) Here, however, the only page you can't edit is the article page about yourself. You can whine on the talk page, you can whinge on your user page, but you shouldn't edit your article page. --User:FalseFlagFlag Me 13:48, 3 March 2008 (EST)
[edit] Proposed new section
To be placed under new section "Exceptions":
If a RationalWikian has no article here, and not enough intelligence has been gathered on them to make an entry, an administrator may extend a special invitation to them on their RationalWiki talk page. The invitee has license to establish their own article, with the understanding that once the article is established, it will will be ruthlessly edited afterwards and the rule will come back in effect.
Thoughts? --Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 14:31, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- Mmmmm. Maybe. T'would make life easier I suppose. I suppose it could be fun to simply insert "does not" or "can't" before every verb after they've written it. So, OK.--User:FalseFlagFlag Me 15:58, 7 March 2008 (EST)
- Alright, then. I will add it to article. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 13:30, 11 March 2008 (EST)
[edit] Confessional
Uh-oh. Sterile 17:45, 12 March 2008 (EST)
- Indeed. I saw your edit to your page. We'll let it pass; there was nothing for you to whitewash, anyways. ;-) Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 17:59, 12 March 2008 (EST)
[edit] Proposed alteration
I would like to add something along the lines of "spelling, grammar, wikification, etc. are allowed"; any thoughts? 
17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking the same. Uncontroversial changes should be allowed. -- Nx/talk 17:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, something along the lines of "If you would mark the edit as minor, it should be OK". 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops.. I added a category to my page a little while ago.. I forgot that I wasn't supposed to, sorry. Could we possibly amend the rules to allow adding a category or other very minor changes? thanks -- Refugee 01:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I, for one, wouldn't consider those sorts of edits to even count as "against the rule" (typos, links, and cats as long as they were additions mot removals). Although, there is always the talk page... humanbe in 02:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think rules should be put on the cats, as it is then too easy for people with an overinflated ego (CUR, anyone) to add flattering but inappropriate categories. The problem is that minor edits have been chastised for violating the rules, so we need to make it clear. 07:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- The point of the ban is to stop people adding/deleting stuff to make themselves look good. Clearly we should ban that, but I have no quibble with spelling and other monor corrections. We should emphasise the point of the rule, rather than have a "because it's the rules" attitude. Rrose Selavy 09:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that people were chastised for making minor edits to their articles, as Refugee pointed out. I'd like it to be made clear that minor edits are allowed. 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Might I Suggest that people be Allowed to add a Link to their RWW User Page so that that may Answer there any Slurs which may be Present on their Article Page. (Or Perhaps this should be Automatic?) --Tolerance 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that people were chastised for making minor edits to their articles, as Refugee pointed out. I'd like it to be made clear that minor edits are allowed.
- The point of the ban is to stop people adding/deleting stuff to make themselves look good. Clearly we should ban that, but I have no quibble with spelling and other monor corrections. We should emphasise the point of the rule, rather than have a "because it's the rules" attitude. Rrose Selavy 09:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think rules should be put on the cats, as it is then too easy for people with an overinflated ego (CUR, anyone) to add flattering but inappropriate categories. The problem is that minor edits have been chastised for violating the rules, so we need to make it clear.
- I, for one, wouldn't consider those sorts of edits to even count as "against the rule" (typos, links, and cats as long as they were additions mot removals). Although, there is always the talk page... humanbe in 02:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops.. I added a category to my page a little while ago.. I forgot that I wasn't supposed to, sorry. Could we possibly amend the rules to allow adding a category or other very minor changes? thanks -- Refugee 01:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, something along the lines of "If you would mark the edit as minor, it should be OK".
