Talk:Old Kia Kima

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 29 November 2019 by reviewer Hugsyrup (talk · contribs).

Historic sites Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ownership

Hi @Potscamp:! I just received your email, and I wanted to address it here on the Talk page. The email I received was: "Who are you and why do you think you have a right to edit the article for OLD KIA KIMA? I represent Old Kia Kima. I wrote the original article. I am the website administrator for Old Kia Kima."

First off, welcome to Wikipedia! And thank you for writing this article! As you know, Wikipedia is dedicated to collaborative editing, and as stated in WP:OWNERSHIP, "an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." My edits were not intended to be adverse and were intended to improve the article. For example, the additional categories I added increase the visibility of the article, and the changes to the infobox help promote uniformity with other similar articles. We also don't need to use Redirect template for "OKKPA" since there is no other article currently that the abbreviation could refer to. Do you have issues with any specific edits I made? Let's build consensus here on the Talk page. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deflagro: Please help me out here by explaining why you are more qualified than I to edit the article and why your edits take precedence over my original article. Potscamp (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Potscamp: I'm not saying that I'm more qualified or that my edits take precedence. But you can't simply revert edits because they were made by someone not affiliated with your organization. We're all working together here, and I'm trying to help improve the article. That's just how Wikipedia works with the collaborative editing process. Again, if you have specific issues with specific edits, I'm happy to discuss them here and we can build a consensus, but it seems you reverted edits simply because it was someone else making them. That goes against Wikipedia's spirit and policies. I'm here to help out, and I'm not trying to attack you or your contribution. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deflagro: Since we seem to be on an equal level I propose putting my original article back in place and for any specific issues you have with the original article you can provide more of an edit explanation than "Major clean up". Potscamp (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original Old Kia Kima article is about the current camp which did not exist until 2002. The edit by @Deflagro: makes the article to be about the old camp Kia Kima which existed prior to 1963. Potscamp (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Potscamp: Please, do not revert edits while we're trying to build consensus on the Talk page. Your most recent edit ([1]) was another manual partial reversion to the "original" article. This is bordering on WP:EDITWAR territory. I understand you're the webmaster for your organization. But your organization does not own the article, and anyone can engage in collaborative editing to the article. It seems your main objection is to the inclusion of a link to Kia Kima Scout Reservation in the lede and the "Main Article" template in the History section? Based on the Arkansas Register listing, this campground is notable because it is the former site of Kia Kima Scout Reservation. Why do you feel linking to the Kia Kima Scout Reservation article changes the scope of the article? What about the other edits you're reverting such as the city in the infobox and the formatting fixes? Please, let's work together on this. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]