All Wikipedia contentWikipedia content includes articles, categories, templates, and others. is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.  Overview Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend it against all others.  It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it.  Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.  You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:  If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.  Also: If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.  If you find yourself edit warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or, if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page, appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.  Even though people can never "own" an article, it is still important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is often more effective to try to work with the editor, instead of against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article.  (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)  There is no rule against being the primary or sole editor of an article, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors is not ignored and/or immediately disregarded. Some articles have few (or one) main contributors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors.  Use of signatures Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should never be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with "~~~~". On existing pages, you can get an idea of where it is appropriate to add your signature by noting what previous contributors have done. For more editing dos and don'ts, see the brief Tutorial.  Types of ownership There are two common types of ownership conflicts between users: those involving primary editors and those involving multiple editors.  Another type of ownership dispute that involves admins is discussed at Wikipedia:Wheel war.  Primary editors Primary editors, that is to say, one editor who appears to assume ownership of an article, should be approached on the article talk page with a descriptive header that informs readers about the topic.  Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc.  In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.  If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages revert wars, try to ignore disruptive behavior by discussing the topic on the talk page. If the ownership behavior persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least one will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the primary editor.  A common response by a primary editor confronted with ownership behavior is to threaten to leave the project.  Since the ownership policy encourages such editors to take a break, it may be wise to let them leave and return when they are ready.  Multiple editors The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.  Resolving ownership issues While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved.  It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain  civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack.  Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect.  Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith.  Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility.  Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the NPOV policy.  Examples of ownership behavior Actions An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article.  (This does not include egregious formatting errors.) Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.  (This does not include removing vandalism.) An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (see Nos. 1 and 2 just below).  মন্তব্য thumb|right|Like the Sphinx guardians of Greek mythology, Wikipedia "owners" pose a riddle to all who dare to edit their articles. "Are you qualified to edit this article?" "You obviously have no hands-on experience with widgets." "I/he/she/we created this article."  "Hi! I notice that you are a new contributor to the widget article.  Thank you sooo much for your ideas.  It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets.  Anyhow, I have made some small amendments to your changes.  You might notice that my tweaking of your wording has, in effect, reverted the article back to what it was before, but do not feel disheartened.  Please feel free to make any other changes to my article if you ever think of anything worthwhile.  Toodles! :)"   On revert  "Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality." "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."  "We don't need this.  Thanks anyways."  "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote.  I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."  "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source."  "You didn't have consensus because I was offline."  "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."  "I have spent hours editing this article. You are vandalizing my work!"  "Get consensus before you make such huge changes."  ====  Wikipedia:No vested contributors  Wikipedia:Disruptive editing  Wikipedia:User page  Template:Maintained  Essays  Wikipedia:Divisiveness  Wikipedia:Old dogs and new tricks  Wikipedia:Tendentious editing  Wikipedia:Words of wisdom  Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"  টীকা  বহিঃসংযোগ AuthorshipModel – a discussion of authorship of Wiki pages on the CommunityWiki  সম্পর্কিত তথ্য  বিষয়শ্রেণী:উইকিপিডিয়া আচরণ নীতিমালা বিষয়শ্রেণী:উইকিপিডিয়া সংস্কৃতি