User talk:NYScholar/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

My message

Message to those involved in the current WP:AN/I that I filed and who have continually failed to respect my entirely-civil requests in it and elsewhere in the past several days:

Please know that I will not be responding to any further comments about it posted on my current talk page. I filed the report initially in WP:AN/I for some neutral administrative relief, which does not appear to be coming. If you (and you know who you are) have any heart (which I wonder), you will let me be. Thank you. I expect to be offline after this comment; see the top headers. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that other editors "who know who [they] are" are heartless is really quite provocative and it is not conducive to a collaborative project. Leaving out specific names does not give you an exemption from civility and behavioural policies and guidelines or allow you to end-run around community standards. Also, this is a communal, collaborative project and you can't just hang a shingle permanently on your door saying that you are indefinitely too busy to deal with other users while you continue making lots of edits every single day. Please read the civility policy and I would specifically draw your attention to Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility as I believe you are in breach of it on a number of points including but not only in regard to your repeated false accusations. Thank you for your consideration. Sarah 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Material removed

[Copy of material already archived on another user's current talk page removed. [See: Sarah's talk page section, where it is posted and where I have seen it]. In my view, it is outrageous. For the full record, see my archive pages.] (Added link to user page; please do not edit my comments in the future here or elsewhere. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

I added a direct link to Sarah's comments which is all that Sarah could or should have done in posting about it; Sarah could have added the link in the AN/I. I respectfully requested that there be no further posts about this AN/I matter on my current talk page. Sarah's previous positions expressed on my talk page (to me and others) are all archived in my archive talk pages. (I preferred not to use the user's name because I did not want to single the person out and have to use a gender-related pronoun; the name is "Sarah"; one would assume that the person is female and that "she" is appropriate; but I make no assumptions. I also have not read that user's talk pages or user pages since the past event (archived) and do not know anything about that user other than what I remember.) My impression is that the person/people lack what I call "heart" because these people are mercilessly attacking me and not respecting my wishes to be offline both to rest and to do other non-Wikipedia related work. Sarah has called me a liar in the past, which is untrue, and shows no respect for me or my work or my need for rest. To me that is "heartless." --NYScholar (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

[For the distortions that I perceive in that so-called summary and the reasons why I perceived Sarah to be deleting my comments from my archived talk pages before (misrepresented by the comment on it archived on the talk page at the above link), please consult User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19#Unwarranted and unauthorized deletions of my own comments made on this talk page. When I would see my comments in that (now-archived) situation from February 2008), they would be changed due to the changes made in my archives and/or archiving (of my then current talk pages) by Sarah; to me the changes looked like deletions of my comments; that was the result. The same thing occurred in the AN/I; Sarah changed my heading, added Sarah's own comments, in effect moving the material that I had provided originally down the page by dint of doing that and inserting Sarah's comments; I tried to restore and/or reorder what I had originally posted, because the links related to my original heading needed to be closer to it; Sarah's changes resulted in my own explanatory comments of the AN/I being moved from where they had first appeared as Sarah was/is re-focusing the section from what I had posted, an AN/I about Stuthomas4's personal attacks on me, to Sarah's and others' continuing attacks on me. Despite Sarah's claim that those changes to my heading are more "descriptive" of what the section is about (now), the heading does not describe what I was originally filing the AN/I about; via Sarah's instigation and continuing posts in the section, Sarah re-focused the heading on me and signaled to others that that is what the AN/I was to be about. It is now no longer my AN/I, it is Sarah's. Sarah could have posted a separate AN/I about me and left my AN/I to be about Stuthomas4. Sarah chose not to do that. I will not be commenting in the AN/I any further. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that I participate any further in the AN/I; and I will not do so. The "diffs." that I have already provided are all accessible via the links that I have already referred people to. I explained that I do not want to take any more of my time with administrative disputes in Wikipedia. I will not be drawn into them any further. I returned to post this after noticing the response by another user in Sarah's archived section (link above). I am going back offline to do other things. --NYScholar (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

From Sarah

I'm assuming that you do not understand how ANI works. As with Requests for Arbitration, the person complaining to ANI generally comes under scrutiny themselves and they often become the subject of the discussion if it becomes apparent that they are in fact a large part of the problem. As with other areas of Wikipedia, you do not WP:OWN your edits and there was absolutely no need for me to start another section. What I did in changing the header is quite normal on ANI and that is why other administrators endorsed it and reverted your attempts to revert me. The section would have become about you regadless of my input once administrators looked at the Dark Knight discussion page where you are incredibly civilly uncivil. The other users should not have said what they did about you but they're human and when you continually behave in such a stubborn, eccentric and uncivil manner it is a matter of time before any human being eventually snaps. You keep invoking Sandstein's name in defence of your actions, please note Sandstein's recent comments to ANI where he endorses an indefinite block for you. I'm sure you don't believe this, but I don't actually want you banned or blocked indefinitely. I just want you to do three things:

1. Stop your practice of speedy archiving comments on this page,
2. Stop making false accusations against other people or accusations without evidence
3. Stop interacting with other users in such a combative manner.

The problem you're having right now is that you're defending your behaviour and refusing to see that other users complaining about your practices have a point, blaming me in the process for all your problems. If other users saw that you recognised your practices were viewed by others as disruptive (even if you do not intend them to be) and that you promised to improve and edit in a more collaborative and congenial manner, I'm sure people would be more willing to give you a chance. But your obstinate refusal to recognise that your eccentric editing practices are disruptive and not conducive to a collaborative editing environment is making blocks and formal editing restrictions increasingly likely. Please consider. Thanks. Sarah 01:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again: Please respect my wishes and do not post further comments about the AN/I on my current talk page. Thank you. [Posted --NYScholar (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

Look, you do not own this page; the community owns it and allows you to use it for the purposes of communication, i.e. so other editors may communicate with you. If you're still an editor here, anyone who needs to leave you a message will leave it here and you cannot prevent them from doing so. And if you're not still an editor on Wikipedia, then you don't need to keep coming back to check if people have left you messages so it doesn't matter. Sarah 07:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not address me with "Look", etc.

Moreover, I am still an editor on Wikipedia, and I came back to check this page as I said that I would do, out of courtesy. I am quite tired of these misinterpretations of my comments. I suggest that you review Steve's helpful suggestions in the AN/I. You seem to take everything I say differently from how I intend it. I am not stupid. I know that I do not "own" the material in Wikipedia; however, just about every user talk page that I have seen in Wikipedia is described as the "user's talk page" and I understand what it is as it is described in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; and WP:UP, and every other WP:POL that I have linked to above and in my user boxes. If you cannot be civil, please do not address me at all. Post your comments in the AN/I. I've asked enough times. I only replied here for two reasons:

1. Common courtesy (which I see that you generally lack)
2. So that it would be clear, given your demands, that I was not not responding, due to the situation that you have set up; it could appear that I was being uncivil by not "considering" what you asked me to "consider"; in the past now over 3 hours of my time, I have taken time away from sleep to do what you asked. Again, have a heart. You seem unable to understand just about everything I post. Perhaps your assumptions about me are getting in the way of being able to understand what I am stating. Perhaps your problems of communication need some investigation as well? It is not all me, as you seem to think and constantly to repeat. Your contributions to the misunderstandings archived in my talk pages and now in this page and in the AN/I really do need some scrutiny as well. --NYScholar (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My previously-posted comments prior to Sarah's comments added later above

Re: my posting of a current "wikibreak" notice:

Within the last couple of days, for the first time in the history of my editing here (over 3 years), I have posted a so-called "wikibreak" template notice. In the AN/I (as earlier), falsely (once again despite earlier corretion of the misstatement), and administrator complains that I have "permanently" posted a "wikibreak" notice. Until just the past couple of days, I have posted only a "busy" notice, which is accurate. I am always busy with other work; I take "breaks" from that work to contribute to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, many times, the "breaks" (which I do not intend to be excruciating work) turn into much too much work and make me very tired. In the past two days, I became so tired from the unpleasant stress that others have been creating for me in Wikipedia that I have found an actual "wikibreak" template and adapted it to explain that I will frequently and periodically be offline for extended indefinite periods of time.

In addition to the "busy" notice, this current "wikibreak" notice is posted because I do not want to have to come back to monitor this page. It is extremely disrespectful for those posting messages on it to continue to do so; they can post their comments in the AN/I (which at someone's repeated instigation they continued to do so while I was offline and couldn't see them).

Apparently, none of these people continuing to post complaints about me and my editing there does have any "heart" (see above). Those of you who do have heart, thank you very much for respecting my notices here.

I repeat: the claim that I have posted a permanent "wikibreak" notice on this current talk page is patently false. The message posted (until I did post a temporary "wikibreak" notice just within the past couple of days) has been a "busy" notice. I am entitled to indicate that I am busy. I am busy (as always) and will be busy after I post this message, I expect to be offline again. So please do not post messages or anything else here. I won't see them. If I come back and see them, after reading them and considering what to do with them (see "N.B." above), I will delete them from this page and/or archive them and/or move them to the talk page of whoever posted them.

[For the comment just removed, see (Sarah)'s own archived current archive box or archive (in future). It is not necessary to post it twice. It is accessible on (Sarah)'s own talk page. (Added name to match previous changes above.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]

I will archive the current comments that I have just written above in due course and when I have time to do so. They will be here for at least 24 to 48 hours (from 22:11, 12 July 2008), depending on when I log on again to archive them.

And, yes I can keep a "busy" template on my talk page. I am always busy. That is a fact. I have explained this clearly enough; it is my prerogative to have a "busy" template on this page. That is what I want to have because it is factually correct.

(Note: Where I refer to Sarah's "archived" section on her current talk page, I am referring to a section in color; I did not realize that it was not part of "archived" material until a few minutes ago; I replied to her there.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My reply to Sarah's post above

Once again, Sarah has not respected my repeated requests to "respect my wishes" and "not post further comments about the AN/I on my current talk page". She once again demands that I do precisely what I said I did not have time or desire to do: comment on my current talk page about the AN/I that she altered the heading of or comment any further on or in the AN/I.

I still will not be doing so. But because I actually am not "incredibly civilly uncivil" but rather incredibly civil, I will ignore those lapses of civility on her part and her many earlier lapses of civility and the absurd oxymoronic concept of being "civilly uncivil" (which is a negative way of saying that I am actually civil) to state the following:

1. I have already indicated that I will be archiving the comments posted on this current talk page by me and others (see below:) "for at least 24 to 48 hours (from 22:11, 12 July 2008), depending on when I log on again to archive them." I will look at what they are and decide what to do with them then (as I always do: as per "N.B." above, which has been posted since approx. Feb. 2008).
2. I reiterate that I have not made "false accusations against other people or accusations without evidence"; as I have already explained many times, Sarah (and others) have and still do misinterpret what I have stated; Sarah has not read all of what I replied to her (and others) as now archived in archive page 19 of my talk archive (see earlier links; I will return to post the "diffs." to where she states that she simply refused to read what I wrote in reply to her. [It's archived; so instead of "diffs.", which are not accessible in archive page history in a useful manner, here is the sec. link: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19#And in conclusion... (Sarah's post); previous "diffs." pertaining to Sarah's "reversions" of my then-current talk page back to earlier versions after I had already archived it, thus losing my subsquently-posted comments in the then-current talk pages resulted in it appearing to me that she had "re-factored" or cut-and-pasted material from the archived talk pages back into the then-current talk pages, creating quite a confusing mess; I made no "false statements" or "false accusations"; her reversions resulted in the loss of my own comments/edits, which she would then claim I never made; I provide the diffs. proving that I had stated what I was saying, but I don't know if she ever read them, since she refused to read some of my replies to her at the time.]
3. She has replied in turn at great length both on my talk page (as archived) and above and in her own talk page, and I have read what she has written. I have referred several times to the "administrative abuses" of Wikipedia policies (accessible in WP:LOP, which I use as a shorthand link to all of them) and guidelines (WP:POL, which is linked in WP:LOP. I was then and have been recently referring to guidelines for civility (Wikipedia:Etiquette) and talk page guidelines (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), not to administrative "tools" (about which I have no real knowledge and thus would not have been referring to; that is her continuing misinterpretation. I have already posted "diffs." in archive 19 to the Nov./Dec. 2007 which she was dredging up in February 2008 and again in the current AN/I, but she stated that she refused to read what I wrote, so it is possible she is unknowledgable about the "diffs." that I posted to document what I was saying. I do not make "accusations without evidence"; and though she constantly labels what I post as "accusations", they are statements of fact as I see them. They are not "blatant lies", as she has repeatedly claimed. I am sorry, but I am unable to accept her characterizations of my work or my comments in talk pages of Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia space. I am entirely forthright, honest, and sincere, and her assumptions to the contrary are simply incorrect.
4. I do not know what I am going to do about the current situation. I have not had time to consider it fully because I have been busy offline doing other things. Having had to take so much time to post the AN/I about the incivilities at that time still being directed at me by Stuthomas4 took a lot of my time, and I cannot lose any more of my own time (either to do work or to rest from doing work) with this matter. I will not be posting any further work in Wikipedia while I do my other work and while I consider whether or not I actually do want to contribute any more of my time to editing anything in Wikipedia in the future. At this time, I will not be making any further contributions of my time, energy, and expertise to Wikipedia articles, because I have to devote my time, energy, and expertise to my non-Wikipedia projects. Volunteering any more of my time, energy, and expertise is not, at this time, a productive use of it, in my view.
5. In the future, after I have had time to consider whether or not I want to devote any more efforts to Wikipedia, I may return, keeping in mind my past experiences editing here. It is unlikely that I would want to edit any articles in which I might encounter the users who have been criticizing me so mercilessly currently or in the past.
6. That means that it is highly unlikely that I would allow myself to come into contact with any of them. I will only work with people with whom I share mutual respect and who welcome my contributions, as I do "in real life," where I have worked collaboratively for over 21 years on the same academic project. These statements by people who do not know me at all claiming that I am not able to work collaboratively or collegially or congenially are simply false statements about me. Those making them have been engaged in editing conflicts which have affected their perspectives and they do not provide any "diffs." to substantiate their claims that I am "grossly uncivil"; there are people coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, in that AN/I who have bandied about all kinds of negative phrases and complaints about me without posting any evidence ("diffs.") to back them up. They themselves have often been extremely uncivil in talk pages in response to me, while I have not been uncivil at all to them. Sarah herself has used extremely uncivil language in responding to me throughout both my (now) archived talk pages and the current AN/I, which I have already documented via the links that I have given.
7. The loss to Wikipedia as a project is that I will not contribute to articles the work that earlier I might have contributed because I do not feel that I am being treated with the respect that I deserve and because I do not feel that my contributions are welcomed in the spirit that I have offered them.
8. Administrators and other users of Wikipedia need to keep in mind that we who contribute to Wikipedia do so voluntarily. We are unlikely to want to continue to volunteer our time. which is highly valued outside of Wikipedia, if we are being continually harrassed and treated unfairly, as I feel I have been treated in the course of the past several days and also during other disputes (none of which has resulted in my being indefinitely blocked or banned or sanctioned in any such way; any block I have experienced has been relatively short; the claim that no one supports not blocking or not sanctioning me (made by ThuranX) is not true; one needs to read the current AN/I more carefully and also to keep in mind that people making accusations and judgments there are not basing them on the kind of "diffs." and "evidence" required in an arbitration resolution. Stuthomas4's retroactive statement that it was okay for him to post and re-post and repeat over and over "criticisms" on my then current talk page and, after its deletion, to repeat it on his user page being justified by setting up an "arbitration" is absurd; he was violating WP:3RR in all those changes of my talk page as it pertains to user talk space (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). As I see it, he should have been blocked at the time to prevent him from doing that; finding another user "annoying" does not justify harrassing the user on the user's talk page, as he was continually doing. When a user deletes unwelcome comments on a user's talk page (as I was doing), stating in summaries and in an article's talk page, where they were also occurring, that such comments are unwelcome, it is a breach of Wikipedia etiquette and a breach of WP:3RR for Stuthomas4 to have kept restoring them or adding them. The so-called "olive branch" posting was contradicted by subsequent posts of the same "criticisms" and even calling into question my "good faith" in Talk:The Dark Knight (film), well after the posting of that so-called "olive branch" in my talk page. My refusal to accept the "olive branch" was not being ungracious; I was not naive enough to believe that it was sincere, because he subsequently repeated the same or similar personal attacks after posting it. One of the removed items was something like "God, you're annoying"; after I deleted that he added the comment about my being annoying to his own user page. Later he posted a happy "vacation" message on my talk page, which I do not regard as having been sincere. To me, in the context of all those other postings of negative comments about me, it struck me as a taunt. (I was not going on "vacation" anyway; I was taking a "break" from such abuse and going offline to do other things.)
9. Some points of rebuttal of other false statements by Sarah and others:

I have not "invoked" "Sandstein": I simply stated the fact that it was Sandstein who unblocked Hesperian's block; Sandstein and others (Hesperian et al.) commenting on past situations are doing it from memory; they need to consult the recorded archives and actually read the record to see the errors in their memories of events. I am not responsible for an administrator's mistake (if that is what it was); I think that Sandstein was correct in unblocking Hesperian's block; also, if one goes back to early blocks in my block log, one will see that one was reversed within minutes, because it was an erroneous block (It's hard to understand the editing summary left about it, but the context was that someone had posted an unacceptable negative comment about me on a talk page, and I had "blanked" it, which at that time was considered acceptable; the administrator had misunderstand who had done what at first, and had blocked me instead of the violator of WP:NPA. Other times the blocks were removed before their time limits for rationales given by the administrators. For three years, given some of those circumstances, I do not have that many blocks, if one accounts for the mistaken blocks, the quick unblocks, and the fact that early on (around 2006-2007) I was not really familiar with what constituted "edit warring" or certain other breaches of Wikipedia etiquette.

Re: the current status of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages pertaining to user talk pages; no matter what Sarah proposed (as linked to above), and no matter what Sandstein later responded to that proposal, the situation at the time (February 2008) and still now is based on the current status of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which have not changed regarding a user's removing comments from that user's own talk pages ("User talk page") and flexibility re: archiving. If I want to remove all my archived talk pages and all of the content of this current talk page, and not archive any of it, I could do so and still be within the current Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines pertaining to this user talk page. I could have no content at all on both my user page and my user talk page. The fact that I have taken the time to archive my current talk page over the past three years and that I have left these archived talk pages intact testifies to my good faith, my honesty, my integrity, and my willingness to have the record speak for itself. All of these characteristics of my archiving disprove Sarah's claims. That I might have archived something sooner than she or others would have liked is not "hiding" anything; the material remains archived in the talk pages (unless I removed it due to personal attacks, harrassment, vandalism, or moved it to article talk pages or other users' talk pages--as explained above in "N.B."; none of my archiving is anything but wholly transparent. There is no single manner of archiving recommended or required in Wikipedia of users' talk pages at this time, nor was there any in February 2008 until now. I have done the best I could, given the prevailing talk page guidelines. One is not supposed to follow proposed changes in policies and/or guidelines. One follows what currently pertains. Sarah cannot complain retroactively that I did not follow some proposal that did not exist at the time I archived or that does not exist in policies and/or guidelines even now. It may be her and others' preferences for the future, but it is not yet current policy/guidelines.

Contrary to what Stuthomas4 claims in one of his many posts in the ANI criticizing and further attacking me (with impunity it seems), I have never asked to be referred to as "it": I have asked for "gender neutral" terminology ("he or she"; "her or him"; "s/he"; "him/her", etc.) with relation to me because a "scholar" may be either male or female. One does not refer to a person as "it" and I would never suggest such a thing. Clearly, Stuthomas4 just does not understand what "gender neutral" terminology is pertaining to persons whose sex one does not know. I have been using "she" and "her" in relation to Sarah and "he" and "him" in relation to other users whose sex seems clear from their names or from how those who seem to know them refer to them (in the AN/I and talk pages), and, today, I re-checked Sarah's user page and saw that she has a link to her real name in Wikimedia Commons photos, and so she would seem to identify herself as female, and I have been using feminine pronouns here (as I did in the AN/I) to refer to her.

There are many other false statements being made by others which I would correct and ask for supporting evidence from them ("diffs."), but I do not have time to deal with this anymore, and I have no inclination to do so.

1. Contrary to what ThuranX has recently posted in the AN/I, however, I have never stated anywhere that I would disregard the results of an administrative decision about my editing in Wikipedia. But that does not mean that I agree with the many misstatements, misinterpretations, false statements, false claims, misassumptions, false assumptions, and downright twisting of recorded facts that I have seen made in that AN/I. To try to sort it all out is not my responsibility. It is a careless account not based on recorded facts (diffs.) but based on people's memories of events taken wholly out of context.
2. If this matter went to an arbitration, such statements would not be permissible. There would have to be "evidence" via "diffs." I have only been the subject of one dispute arbitration, which took quite a long time and which ultimately was a waste of time (mine and everyone else's) because it resulted in a decision which agreed with my position on the matter under dispute. In the course of that arbitration, I encountered many of the same kinds of "witch hunt" tactics that I have seen in some people's posts in the current AN/I.
3. In my view, the way that Sarah and others have responded to my simple request for neutral administrative assistance with Stuthomas4's personal attacks that were at the time going on so as to have them stop has simply wasted both my time and the time of others.
4. If anyone missed it, please scroll up for my definition of what I am currently considering. [Number 4 ff.] [repeated original signature (from below) after checking to see if archive bot functioning as intended.] --NYScholar (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Related thoughts

Again, I have posted this reply to Sarah's demand that I "consider" what she wrote, only out of civility and courtesy, although I do not feel that I have been treated with equal civility or courtesy in the past by Sarah. It has taken me over an hour to post this. I waited until very early in the morning to do so. I could have gone to bed, but I took the time to reply here anyway. Those who do not understand that I am human and that I deserve not only respect as a human being but also compassion as someone who has been mercilessly maligned and tired out by this process can deal with that lack of understanding in their own conscience.

ThuranX and Sarah and Moondyne and others involved in editing disputes which did not result as they wished in the past are not "neutral" observers; they have not even noticed comments by others who in the past and in the current AN/I have stated that I should not be blocked and/or otherwise sanctioned as a result of my past or more recent comments in Talk:The Dark Knight (film). Scroll way up in the AN/I to Steve's suggestion, which ThuranX apparently and conveniently disregards in a recent post claiming that no one supports not sanctioning me.

["Others" above includes Wikidemo--I remember the run-ins somewhat (not taking time now to find or to post "diffs." but my behavior, as I recall is, was not as he describes it--"snide", "sniping", etc. My recollection, actually, is that those adjectives more accurately describe his own behavior toward me. Wikidemo provides no "diffs." to substantiate his multiple negative descriptions. Though he suggests the opposite, the context is important: I did not engage in rampant "edit warring" as he suggests; I had actually not worked on a policy page at all or much before that, so I was not really familiar with how one worked on changing one, and there were some "minor" changes to wording that I attempted to make in the project page (as one would make in an article) that apparently were not the way things are to be done, which I learned in that process. The context is that at the time I objected and I still object to linking self-published, unofficial fansites and other similarly unreliable unofficial (usually fan-authored) websites in the EL sections of articles about and involving celebrities who are living persons and other living persons, following WP:BLP#Sources (as revised by Slim Virgin, with whom I actually agreed at the time)--a huge edit war had apparently gone on in that project page before I first encountered it. The policy actually eventually made it clearer that such ELs that I was opposed to including cannot be in EL sections (at that time) [Wikidemo was not happy w/ the outcome]. This is from memory: I haven't returned to read the subsequent talk page discussions; that was one talk page in which I decided not to participate anymore; I felt that some users there, espec. Wikidemo, who may have some "ownership" issues with WP:EL (I believe), were not editors with whom I wanted to have further contact, due to the difficulties of trying to work on that project page. I left it to others to edit in the future. I have come to feel similarly about The Dark Knight (film), and, as I have stated already in the AN/I, I will not contribute anything further to that article. (I did notice recently that someone created a Wikiquotes page that lacks source citations and that includes many or mostly unsourced quotations; I wonder about its acceptability in Wikipedia and think people should examine it closely.)

[:The heading of the AN/I has "others": All of the "others" that word stands for need to be listed in the same manner as Sarah has added my user name/contributions/talk page/block log links; if Stuthomas4 and NYScholar are named, so should be these "others", with the same Wikilinks. Everyone involved in the AN/I making "accusations" against me needs to be as subject to examination as Sarah has made me, and that includes Sarah herself. Each one of those users' user pages, talk pages, contributions, block logs, etc. should be as accessible as mine is in the heading. How all of these users "manage" and "archive" their own user talk pages and other user space and all of these users' evolving block logs should be as subject to examination as mine are being now. To single me out for such scrutiny without examining the editing conflicts in which these others have been involved and their own past breaches of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:POL is, in my view and my experience with some of them, unfair.]

If this response is too long to read and you (any of you involved in the AN/I or others) do not read it, please do not make statements about what I have said; you would not know if you have not read what I have written. It is disrespectful to require a response and then to refuse to read it.

I repeat my request again: Please do not post any further comments about this matter on my current talk page. If there is a decision in relation to the AN/I, please post it there. Thank you. [repeated sig.; see above and below.] --NYScholar (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional note

NOTE: I will archive my comments posted earlier and posted now within 24 to 48 hours of posting here, after considering them as I state I will do in "N.B." above and as I say below, which I posted earlier. Please keep in mind that I reserve the right to archive "exchanges" when I no longer have the time or want to take the time to continue participating in them; I consider such exchanges "over"; if I have replied to comments, the full exchange will be accessible in my archived talk pages, where it will not be altered. Frequently, I add a bracketed note of explanation when I think it necessary. This procedure of archiving does follow current Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines pertaining to user talk pages (user's own talk pages). --NYScholar (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Added a bunch more stuff after previewing. --NYScholar (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[The new archiving bot that I have added today should do this automatically. I followed directions given to me below in the discussion of archiving. --NYScholar (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)]

Question

Since you claim to be a scholar, may I ask what kind of scholar are you? Above you say "academic scholar", but what is your field of expertise? Viriditas (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not merely "claim to be a scholar", Viriditas. [For related information, please consult my user boxes. They are statements of fact.] I am trained as and currently a practicing academic scholar. In past comments (now archived) and in the current AN/I, which I initiated (though whose heading has been changed since then), I have already identified my various fields of expertise in general terms.

My fields of academic training and expertise are multi-disciplinary. Among my past and current academic fields of inquiry and expertise are literature, literary criticism and theory and writing (various genres), including research writing, writing about literature and the media, and bibliography; theater and drama; relationships between politics, human rights, and the media; various other interdisciplinary and multi-discipinary related fields (including those relating to intellectual property, online communities, and collaborative criticism). Those are some of the fields of expertise in which I have taught courses in colleges and universities in the United States and given papers and academic presentations in both the U.S. and Europe. My academic disciplines of expertise are those that pertain to many other members of the Modern Language Association (MLA), of which I am currently a "life member" (as I have been for several years). [For further description of the related disciplines, see The MLA Style Manual.]

I have been a member of this particular academic profession since the mid-1960s, when I earned my undergraduate degree, going on to earn my M.A. and Ph.D. in English language and literature in the mid-1970s. As a life member of the MLA (following its by-laws), I was a dues-paying member for over three decades before being granted life membership status. I have taught courses in English language and literature (including Anglo-American, British, Irish, and other national examples of drama and theater) and film and literary and media criticism since the late 1960s in a number of colleges and universities in the United States. I write and edit articles on a wide range of subjects, including literature, media, and politics; one of my academic specialties [for over 40 years] is research writing (including bibliography). As a writer (sometimes a practicing journalist, in that I also have contributed articles and reviews to newspapers and other more "popular" periodicals), I am accredited as both an academic and theater critic/reviewer and frequently attend performances as a reviewer; I am an editor in my specialities for an important and well-respected academic journal. Thus, my writing and research also cross boundaries of various kinds of periodicals. I am the author of academic books, articles, and parts of books in my fields of expertise. I am currently involved in several related long-term ongoing academic publishing projects, which take up most of my time.

(I began editing in Wikipedia in June 2005, when I encountered some weak and misleading articles on subjects of interest to me that I felt needed strengthening.)

For the areas of expertise of members of the Modern Language Association, please see that article and the cross-linked The MLA Style Manual, which I have edited in the past and updated fairly recently. [In December 2007, at the MLA Convention, I encountered a staff member of the MLA who thanked me for updating that article up to then. After the publication of the 3rd edition of the MLA Style Manual (which I just received about 2 weeks ago in the mail), I updated the article on it further.] As a longtime member of the organization, I have direct professional experience of and with it. I have attended its annual conventions (except for one year) since 1970.

Because I am a well-known academic scholar in my principal fields of research, I cannot identify myself more specifically without losing my anonymity in Wikipedia and becoming a possible victim of e-mail spam and potential identity theft. I do not use e-mail with Wikipedia or in Wikipedia due to such concerns and protection of my privacy. My e-mail address includes my real name, and I cannot and will not risk such problems. In the past I have explained that I do not and will not use it in Wikipedia, because of the potential for receiving abusive spam via e-mail which might parallel other abusive treatment that I have received in the past and am receiving now in Wikipedia talk pages and project space (AN/I). No one should disclose my real identity in Wikipedia and compromise the anonymity of my Wikipedia log-in identity. I use a gender-neutral identity in part to protect my real identity from such compromising and consequent dangers. All of my real-life writing is copyright-protected, including my e-mail correspondence.

Contrary to another recent aspersion in the current AN/I (by ThuranX), I am not a "student". I am an academic scholar with several decades of teaching experience in writing and research and literature and allied fields (including film and media criticism) as a professor in colleges and universities. I am a frequent participant in academic conferences on related subjects.

Again, I do not simply "claim" to be an "academic scholar", I am an academic scholar (as I state above in the note at top); my user name is "descriptive"; as I state:

"NYScholar" is an academic scholar who resides in New York.

To imply or to insinuate that my self-identification is untrue (as ThuranX has done in the AN/I) is a form of incivility and a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL, and that insinuation may have led to the posting of this "Question" here (or not; I don't know).

There is no reason to "question" my statement, as these other users have been and are doing. I have identified my academic specialties only generally because to do so any more specifically would be to compromise my anonymity.

My expertise in various academic fields should be clear from the content that I have contributed to Wikipedia articles over the years (see the Barnstars regarding that), and in the work that I have done providing documentation citations to articles on a variety of subjects.

Wikipedia editing guidelines direct people to avoid the use of the word "claim" in describing what sources state in articles in Wikipedia, because the use of claim implies that the statement one has made is untrue. I hope that V's use of the term does not intentionally "question" the veracity of my user-boxes and call into question what they document. Although I and my work in Wikipedia have been and are receiving disrepectful attacks in the current AN/I (and various article and user talk pages), and although I have been and am currently being belittled in the current AN/I, I have taken my time to respond civilly to some of those attacking me (still) there, and I have taken my time to respond civilly to your "question" here, despite my repeated request that people not post such questions to me now. I am going back offline to do my work and to rest.

I came online after several hours rest out of courtesy. When I logged on, I saw the "orange" message alert and therefore am answering your "question". But I must go back offline. (If I were not to have answered it, I would probably receive still further criticism in the AN/I; to have answered it in detail, as I am doing is not just for the benefit of the user posing the question [V], but for the benefit of anyone else reading my response. This response is "public" and I am aware of that. I will archive it in the future or put it in a separate user page linked to my user space.)

I am not happy with the current situation in Wikipedia and I feel that the comments being made about me are horribly disrespectful and constitute an extremely-public embarrassment to Wikipedia. There are some people throughout the world who are aware of my actual identity as an editor of Wikipedia and who have been posting links to articles that I have worked on in Wikipedia in major national newspapers and library resources online. I have asked these individuals to maintain the confidentiality of my identity. I do not want my personal identity to be publicized on Wikipedia, and it should be protected in keeping with WP:POL and WP:BLP. I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. For me to continue doing so in the future may be impossible, under the current circumstances developing as a result of the AN/I.

For more information, please see my userboxes on my user page and the related subpage links above. (There is a subpage on copyright issues that also includes material relating to academic views of Wikipedia.)

I already referred to some of my academic fields of expertise in the recent AN/I and I have already defined them as well generally in past archived talk pages (see the archive box). Thank you. [--NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)] --NYScholar (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Related comments (break)

Although Viriditas has been rude to me in the past, s/he apologized for being rude to me in the past (as archived); I chose not to have further contact in editing articles with that user due to the past rudeness. I have chosen to reply cordially and civilly because there may be others who are unaware of that past archived history. I was not happy about that past episode, and I hope that the "question" being posed here is sincere (despite the use of claim). Assuming good faith, I have responded in good faith: WP:AGF. I will not respond further to questions of this nature, however, due to time limitations. Please respect the top template messages. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Logging back out of Wikipedia. Offline. --NYScholar (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. However, I must point out, in addition to your answer, you responded with a blatantly false accusation:

Although Viriditas has been rude to me in the past, s/he apologized for being rude to me in the past (as archived); I chose not to have further contact in editing articles with that user due to the past rudeness.

Your claim that I have been rude to you in the past and that you have archived such rudeness, is a complete fabrication. Here is the entirety of our past interaction on your talk page: User_talk:NYScholar/Archive_2 I would challenge anyone, anyone to come forward and characterize my polite comments towards you as rude. NYScholar, you have been warned by administrators to stop making false accusations and you seem incapable of doing so. Per WP:THERAPY, is there any reason why you should not be indefinitely blocked for your bad behavior? Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My "claim" of your past rudeness and my discussion of it is fully documented in my talk page archive User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2. If you highlight your name, will will find the previous discussion. What I stated is documented there and is no way "false accusations"; it appears to me that Viridita's "question" and this reply to it needs to be read in the context of te above response. I responded to the question in good faith, only (as I feared might occur) to be further attacked. I am not going to say any more to Viriditas; I explained why before in the archived talk page. I would not respond further to Viriditas then or do further work on the article in question due to that earlier mistreatment. It is not my "behavior" which is "bad" here, as I think the reply above, taken in the context of previous contact with Viriditas, bears out. Enough, Viriditas. Please do not address any more comments to me on my talk page or anywhere else. I respond in good faith and you malign me. I will not be subject to such treatment by you or by anyone else in Wikipedia. This matter is currently being reviewed, and I think any impartial and neutral observer will see what is occurring here. --NYScholar (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the archive (linked twice above) that shows my "rude" comments. There are none. In fact, the only rude comments on that page are yours. Please stop making false accusations. I came here to ask you a simple question about your user name and your claims about being a scholar, and in return, you have made a false accusaiton about me, a claim that is not supported by the link to your archive. I challenge you to pull one, just one rude comment from your archive that has my name attached. If you can't do that, I will assume that you have great difficulty telling the difference between fact and fantasy. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking any more time to reply to you, Viriditas; I've explained why before: the history of the exchange is documented in Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2; look for your own name via a Google search. If you are "bored to tears" by my writing, don't ask me questions and for further responses. I stopped editing the article due to the removal of my comments from the talk pages by Slim Virgin and SV's editing out my comments when she archived the then current talk pages relating to that article. I haven't time to reconstruct all that. If you want to reconstruct your past rudeness to me yourself, you can find your own passage still in that archive 2. My response occurred around February 23, 2007, and some of my responses are not accessible in the editing history of the article as "diffs."; a great deal of changing of the original talk pages of the article occurred during various archiving of them, and I haven't time to reconstruct them. You can find our exchange, however, still there. Again, if I "bore you to tears", I suggest you not ask me for replies. --NYScholar (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just able to locate it again, through the search that I suggested that you do:

But something bad isn't happening to you, it's happening to me, your reader. You are boring me to tears! I demand an apology. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry that I didn't see this comment by Viriditas before. If I had, I would never have responded with courtesy or at all to his asking me to come here to put bullets in etc. [....] Viriditas. If you don't want to read about what to do about improving content of articles, don't come to talk pages. If I had realized how disingenuous you were in what you posted on my talk page, I would simply have ignored you, as I will do from hereon. [The bracketed ellipses are my own. Fill in what you think might be most appropriate there.] .... --NYScholar 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Offline after this. --NYScholar (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we're making actual progress. Great. Without admitting your previous error, you are now saying that yes, Viriditas was right, there was no rudeness in the user talk archive as you erroneously claimed twice. Backpedaling slowly, you are now claiming that I was rude to you on Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2, and even though I was trying to break the ice with you by injecting some humor into a very dry talk page, I can see how you took my comment, "But something bad isn't happening to you, it's happening to me, your reader. You are boring me to tears! I demand an apology" as rude. Most editors would see that the tone of the comment itself was based on absurdity, and as such is representative of humor, not rudeness. In any case, my comments were intended to address the length of you talk page contributions, which many editors have asked you to limit. You won't follow talk page guidelines, and my comment was meant to jar you out of your passive state. Many editors have asked you to stop leaving screeds on talk pages, and you refuse to listen to them. Do you still maintain that my comments on your user talk page were rude? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is no "error" in what I posted. I found Viriditas' remarks to me "rude", and that is archived. Viriditas is apparently very childish. I responded in good faith despite this past experience with Viriditas (which confirms my earlier impression now that the so-called "Question" was actually a bait. I am sorry to have dignified Viriditas' question with a reply. I will reply no further to Viriditas and I will remove anything that Viriditas posts on this page if I construe it as further baiting and further personal attacks. I don't find Viriditas humorous. The same way that apparently others find me "annoying", I find Viriditas "annoying", and I don't want to take any more of my time with such users, just as they do not want to be "bored to tears" by me. I think it best if Viriditas and I simply agree to stop any further exchanges; I left the editing of Daniel Pipes in 2007 because I found it an unpleasant editing experience. I chose not to interact with Viriditas then, and I choose to discontinue interaction with Viriditas now. If the user posts any more attacks on me or my editing style on this talk page, I will delete them. Viriditas: I have warned you to knock it off. I didn't appreciate your so-called "humour" at my expense then, and I don't appreciate it now. What you regard as "humor" (making fun of me), I regard as disrespectful incivility. WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA. I do not want to communicate with you any further (as I indicated on Feburary 23, 2007, and I indicate above. If you cannot be respectful of me, I do not want to communicate with you. That is my prerogative. I will remove any further violations of WP:HAR from you or anyone else from this user page. --NYScholar (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to go offline as I state above, when despite the notice, as I was still logging out, the orange bar appeared. If it happens again, I will delete the further harrassment. It will not be archived. You will find it in the editing history of this user page. --NYScholar (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You will not find a single editor other than yourself that will characterize my comments in your talk page archive as "rude". Not one. And my comments to you on the Daniel Pipes talk page were intended to be absurd, and as such, humorous. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear up your errors, since you are unwilling to retract them yourself. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I had removed this comment, but Viriditas reverted my removal of it earlier. It is not accurate. I was referring all along (above) to the discussion of my response to Viridita's Feb. 2007 "rude" comment in the Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2, as I discuss it in archive 2 of my own talk page; Viriditas has not understood that my reference was to my discussion of his/her earlier rudeness to me (which occurred in talk page of Daniel Pipes), a discussion of which is archived now in my archive page 2. Both the incident of rudeness (as I had perceived it then, which occurred on Feb. 20, 2007 or so) and my response to it then (February 23, 2007), had taken place in the once-current talk page of Daniel Pipes, which became archived later as talk page 2 of that (Daniel Pipes) archive. The discussion of how I felt about it is, however, in archive page 2 of my own user talk page archive. I was referring to my discussion of rudeness not the the presence of rudeness in my own once-current talk page, but the rudeness that I had been referring to at that time occurred elsewhere (in talk page of Daniel Pipes). That both archive pages are numbered 2 makes these references all the more confusing; neither of us has actually been "in error" in what we say on this current talk page, we are simply not understanding each other; mis-communicating. That is partly why I asked that the communication end. I had deleted originally the comment that Viriditas reverted (replaced) later, because it had appeared to be harrassment to me. It should be clear now that Viriditas misinterpreted what I was referring to (my own discussion, not his/her rudeness in that particular discussion as archived in my talk page 2). Too often, it seems to me, users do not account for possibilities that they interpret another user's comments differently from how they are intended. One reason why Wikipedia's talk page guidelines recommend avoiding the use of "sarcasm" and "irony" (the kind of "humor" in which apparently Viriditas was engaging in talk page of Daniel Pipes) is because users frequently may misinterpret their intention. I generally try to make literal statements and to avoid use of "irony" and "sarcasm" in my comments to others in Wikipedia, partly due to the potential for such misinterpretations occurring. --NYScholar (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

NYScholar, I want to apologize for my sense of humor on Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2; It's gotten me into trouble before. In the future, I will use emoticons to prevent this kind of misunderstanding from occurring. I certainly didn't intend to be rude to you, nor was I making fun of you. I was simply using absurdity to mirror your comments, and to show you that it is difficult to follow a discussion on the talk page that isn't brief and to the point. I hope you accept my apology. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I did accept your apology before, and I do accept it again now; however, due to these misunderstandings and problems of communication, I think it better not to communicate with each other in Wikipedia space. I understand your point. I responded you at length above (as I state above), because I thought perhaps the "question" was sincere (despite our past interactions) and because it is a public reponse to the question meant for others to read as well. If you review that article's talk page (an unpleasant experience, which I have no desire or inclination to do any further), you will see the contexts occurring at that time, which drove me from editing that article entirely. Please do not revert my talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, I didn't make a previous apology. On your talk page, I merely made a polite statement to the effect of, "I apologize for bothering you." That is not an actual apology for any wrongdoing, but a civility convention that is tantamount to "thanks in advance for your time". Two different things entirely. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I took it as an apology, nevertheless. (That is what I remembered and was alluding to earlier. It happened a long time ago [Feb. 2007].) That is how I remembered our previous interaction. In answering your "question", above, as I say, I chose to give you the "benefit of the doubt"; I was, however, further dismayed by your subsequent replies. If this is truly an "apology" now, however, I accept it. But I don't think that you and I are having productive exchanges, so I suggest that we not participate in more of them. I'm tired and have to rest. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Logging out/offline

Logging out. Please respect the fact that I will be logged out of Wikipedia and unable to reply to anyone in Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. Talk pages are used all the time, whether the user is logged out or not. Don't worry, we'll leave messages here for you to review when you get back. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. --NYScholar (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[Link:] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others.

Please be advised that you have been blocked as per the discussion on the above page. As per that discussion, the existing block will be lifted upon your being successfully enrolled in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program and adopted. You can request enrollment in that program by adding the {{dated adoptme}} to this page. You will also be able to set up automatic archiving of any comments on your user talk page to a reasonable time. In this instance, 96 hours (4 days) has been suggested. One such bot doing such archiving is User:Werdnabot, and you can find details of how to set up archiving messages there. You will be able to respond to any offers for adoption on this page. It is conceivable that you may be unable to find a mentor through this process in a reasonable length of time. Should it become clear that is the case, then it would certainly be the case that the block might be reviewed later. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I also realize that it can be a bit demeaning to have an adoption template placed on a user page. I don't really like the phrasing of the template myself, for what it's worth. So, worst case scenario, you may well find that might be at least a few potential adopters who might not insist upon the sort of "formal" adoption indicated by that template, but maybe just someone to call upon in unfortunate situations and perhaps offer assistance or review as needed. I could imagine being party to such a untemplated agreement myself, and I can imagine that there may be others as well who would not insist upon the presence of such a template, but would accept the substance of a mentorship without the related paraphenalia, like the userbox. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

John Carter: I appreciate your sensitivity here; however, I really don't mind the appearance of the templates. Under the circumstances of the AN/I, the visual template may be useful since it signals to visitors to this page who are aware of that AN/I that I have indeed complied with your conclusion in the closing (top message in the AN/I). For further comments, please see below. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to John Carter, et al.

• John Carter: I looked at the Werdnabot re-directed page and do not understand how that works at all. Usually, when I want to add something that I see on others' talk or user pages, I use the "edit" function to preview the code and copy/paste it onto my page. It often has taken me hours to devise how to adapt various user boxes in the current user boxes subpage that I created (scroll up); I figured out how to do the archive box and made it into a smaller version of the box with automatic adding on of each separate archive page, which I have been creating manually all this time. But I have no idea how one does any kind of "bot" (never used such complicated things in Wikipedia). I have added the adopt-a-user box as you ask; perhaps someone who knows how to alter my current method of archiving to a bot method will come along to help. I am posting this now to get this done asap.
• As my current "busy" and adapted "wikibreak" template indicate (and will continue to do so throughout this summer and fall), I am going to be deluged with non-Wikipedia related work projects; I expect a huge one to do over the next two weeks (basically 8-12 hours/day 7 days/week until it's done due to press deadline). It is non-stop work, and there will be no time for me to be "mentored" or to do any editing at all in Wikipedia, except perhaps, with someone's assistance, to set up this archive box.
  • Regarding the results of the AN/I: I do not feel that it was even-handed to block me in this manner indefinitely and not to sanction any one of all the other Wikipedia users (including some administrators) who directed a large barrage of pejorative incivilities toward me, which continued in talk pages even after the AN/I decision that you yourself came to. I find myself still being maligned in various ways, and I think some administrator not involved in the recent AN/I that you have linked needs to examine the incivilities directed to and at me by others throughout Wikipedia space.
  • Re: specifically ThuranX: He was involved both in the editing disputes in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and yet also increasingly functioned as some kind of ringleader in the AN/I, an apparent conflict of interest, it would seem to me (and I would think other neutral observers, if they had realized that).

He claims that a recent statement that I made toward the end of the AN/I (re: his implied statement about "rolling back" my work) is false and demands that I post "diffs." to prove the he made it: He made the comment in Talk:The Dark Knight (film): Diffs.. Since that AN/I is now "closed" and in an archive box, I post that "diffs." here instead of there; it shows that he has no basis for claiming that I was engaging in making a "false statement" or "false statements". [Depending, of course, on how much irony/sarcasm he intends there, it is possible that I or someone else might completely have misinterpreted his intended point(s); but when I posted the reference to "rolling back" in the AN/I, it is this comment that I was referring to/remembering.]

Despite all his and Sarah's claims that I make or made "false statements" (which I do not believe that I do or did), why has he or she not been required to post "diffs." to back up his/her own "claims"?

• After you closed the AN/I, Sarah explained to [[Beam that my ref. to "resigned" (intending "re-signed") was in regard to re-signing my post because I had forgotten that I was logged out when I used the 4 tildes. That is correct. I am happy that she clarified that. (She does seem nicer to me after the closing than before it. Although Viriditas says that Sarah is one of Wikipedia's "most civil" administrators, she just has not been consistently civil to me. But she became a bit more conciliatory toward the end.)

Yet this same user, Beam, then went to Sarah's talk page to post further incivilities about me, e.g., calling me a "fool" and stating that Beam was disappointed that I had not actually "resigned" from Wikipedia and would have been "happy" to see me go. Not civil behavior, as I encounter it: Diffs. Such users are who continuing to engage in these incivilities about me even after the AN/I (basically to gloat) are doing so with apparent impunity, possibly or maybe even probably as a result of seeing that no one but I has been "sanctioned" despite all the other incivilities directed against me during that procedure (both in the AN/I and also in various users' talk pages throughout Wikipedia space). That kind of ongoing behavior should result in (at the very least) warnings--and all users who are engaging in such behavior should receive similar warnings.

• I see no even-handedness or fairness in such a lack of warnings and/or sanctions for any of those incivilities directed against me throughout this episode (including the ones in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) and continuing beyond the closing of the AN/I.
• Of course, I appreciate Stuthomas4's offer to be sanctioned himself. Yet, ThuranX actually praises Stuthomas4 as if he were a hero ("glowing", "admirable"), as if he did nothing wrong throughout at all; that is a white-wash of the facts.diffs. ThuranX praises Stuthomas4 for being "human". Neither one of them is any more "human" than I am; or, put another way, I am just as human as they are. (I am more "serious" than they prefer; but "it takes all kinds....") At least, Stuthomas4 accepts some degree of responsibility for his own role in my filing an AN/I in the first place after multiple warnings to him did not result in his ceasing to "criticize" me. (He had already "criticized" me in the talk page of the article; in my view, he did not have to come to my talk page to continue posting the same "criticisms" over and over again. I had already read them on the talk page of the article. No one seems to have recognized that fact.)

While I am not seeking "retribution" against Stuthomas4, it is notable that on July 6 to July 7, right before the beginning of the violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL concerning me and violations of WP:3RR both on my user talk page and on the talk page of The Dark Knight, he himself had been blocked for Wikipedia:Edit warring (see Stuthomas4's block log, and then on July 12 (during the period of the AN/I), he was warned for ongoing violations of WP:3RR (see the warning on his current talk page and its previous context in his now-archive 1): User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1#Warning; User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1#That editor.; User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1#ANI; User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1#3RR notice. It seems very odd to me that he didn't receive at the very least some kind of warning immediately in response to the AN/I that I filed (since his reverting the talk page of the article and my user talk page involved additional violations of WP:3RR in the context of further edit-warring). Perhaps, instead of following ThuranX's suggestion re: filing an AN/I (in the talk page of the film, as I cited in the AN/I), I should have posted a formal warning about the WP:3RR violations. At that point, I had not realized that he had just come off a 24-hour block (for violations of WP:3RR in relation to other edit warring):User talk:Stuthomas4/Archive 1#July 2008.

Stuthomas4 actually archived his user talk page during this proceeding--while it was still taking place see archive 1 for that content: hardly 96 hours to 4 days after these very discussions took place--see my comments on the archiving period below.

As I have already documented, it is not true that Stuthomas4 "apologized" to me and then immediately stopped the incivilities. He apologized in Talk:The Dark Knight (film) but then immediately after that, he kept engaging in further incivilities (there and in my own talk page, on his own talk and user pages, and on others' talk pages), even after he posted an "olive branch" on my talk page. (The time stamps document the order of events.) The links that I provided at the top of my AN/I originally provided documentation of that. One had to read the talk page and to consult the comparable time stamps. (He also engaged in multiple reversions of my own comments and headings on the film talk page: e.g., Diffs.; Diffs.--scroll through previous and next; not posting them all here.) I have since accepted his subsequent apology in the AN/I nevertheless. My acceptance of his apology could actually have "resolved"/closed this entire matter. That did not happen, however, because Sarah [and ThuranX (et al.)] wanted (and lobbied for) "sanctions" against me.

To me the whole episode looks more and more like the very kind of "browbeating" etc. that Stuthomas4 was accusing me of doing in the talk page of The Dark Knight (and then over and over again in my talk pages and the AN/I). By the time this AN/I concluded, I was becoming far more "browbeaten" than "browbeating", I think (beat up). Who was actually browbeating whom?

• This kind of lack of evenhandedness is very poor precedent to set for other users (especially new users) relating to WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL.
• This is not a question of whether I "won" or "lost" or whether they "won" or "lost" in a single An/I. It is a question of what improves the atmosphere for all editors in Wikipedia and for the readers of Wikipedia.
• From my perspective both as a professional and as an "experienced" Wikipedia user (who apparently, nevertheless, still needs "mentoring" usually reserved for new users), the handling of the AN/I gives me strong misgivings about my doing any further work in Wikipedia at all. I will not be editing any articles for some time and do not know at this time whether I will ever again want to contribute any further work to Wikipedia articles in the future (for reasons already discussed). [If I were to "disappear" from the face of Wikipedia, it would apparently please Beam, who was already (prematurely) celebrating my demise!]
• But, in response to your request, I have posted the adopt-a-user box.
• The archiving matter is another matter. It is not required in WP:UP or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User pages for users to archive their user pages specifically after 96 hours or 4 days. I do not understand on what policy or guideline you are basing that particular 96-hour/4 day requirement on my user page (on me). Please explain what your rationale for that period is and why it is not arbitrary. Why is that particular archiving period being required of me and not required of other Wikipedia users via WP:UP/Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages?

I don't care that much one way or the other about using an archive bot for the archiving of this talk page (if it works well, without glitches), but as I say above, I have no idea how to add such a bot to this page in a way that integrates it with my currently-archived pages (the most recently-formatted one would have the material from this page in it next): that would not delete them inadvertently. As I am unable to cut and paste code from any other Wikipedia space at this point (since due to the block I can only edit my own user talk page), I am seeking particular help from some user experienced with bots to set this up. That is perhaps one basis for my posting of the adopt user box.

• Before anyone accuses me further of editing "abuses" (or "screeds") because I have written this extensive reply, let me point out that I have responded to the situation of the closing of the AN/I in detail so that all Wikipedia users will know precisely what my responses are. I am not keeping them to myself, but going on record stating them.
• Thank you, John Carter--if you did take the time to read the entire history of this AN/I and consult the linked material posted in it and on my current talk page (no small feat!)--for the time that you invested in the closing of the AN/I and in the comments that you posted above.
• I do not know when I will be back to log on to Wikipedia. I will also be away from my home computer or any computer for a couple of days mid-week.
• On a more pleasant note: I hope to see a midnight showing of The Dark Knight on the 17th, so I won't be around then either. I hope to enjoy it in a way that somehow makes up a bit for the misery endured in the past several days in Wikipedia.
• Despite these run-ins over the article The Dark Knight (film), I still look forward to reading the work of the other editors on it (no hard feelings!), even though I will not be working on it any further myself. --NYScholar (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I just wrote a full response to your comments above, only to have it lost because of the server being overloaded. On that basis, I regret that most of what I said was lost. The last point I remember making however was that you are apparently still misrepresenting the statements of others. Please read the statement I made about archiving. At no point did I say it was "required", as you clearly state above. Such possible willful misrepresentation of the statements of others, even now, doesn't help your case at all. Learning to avoid making such mistakes in the future is one of the reasons mentoring is offered, as per the statements on that page. These include help in handling dispute resolution, which seems to have been at least part of the problem here. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

John, respectfully, I find this a bit harsh. I do not have much experience with how an AN/I closing works; there is no "willful misrepresentation" of yours or anyone else's statements in what I have commented above. I really thought that the closing decision of the AN/I, as I read (past tense) it, signified that I am required to add an archiving bot that archives for no [sooner (I meant)] than 96 hours or 4 days [if I were using a bot; that part I understood to be a kind of recommendation; the archiving is not mentioned in the conclusion I see now, but I had responded to what was discussed by you and others and that seemed to be the result of the discussion; I thought it was a "requirement" being made of me.] That is how I read (past tense) your ruling/closing decision, espec. given some others' endorsement of it (though not everyone's). I thought that your final rendering of your "decision" is the "final word" (for me). I have not "appealed" your decision. I just asked about the rationale, etc. above. I placed the bot as suggested by the other admin who has come along (GRBerry below), because it seems to resolve the need for a bot to do as you (I thought) required. When I have a chance, I'll review what you said again. Perhaps you can direct me to the part of it that I need to review and interpret what part is a requirement and what part is a suggestion for me. (I'll go over there in a bit. But I was just about to log out again and go offline when I saw the orange bar message alert and this message.

Sorry that you lost what you wrote before--it happens to me too, and I hate that happening. With Wiki busy server issues, I find that if I use the green arrows refresh page feature at top of IE7, I get the material saved (but cannot preview). I do thank you for all your efforts in the AN/I. Your assumption that I am willfully misrepresenting you or anyone else really does seem to be a misassumption (as I understand my own thoughts and intentions) and such miscommunications have, in my recent past experience, been at the crux of the AN/I all along. (I think that people in Wikipedia tend to forget often how inefficient and subject to miscommunication online communications of this nature can be. Intentions of writers are not as transparent as many seem to assume; if they were, my entire field of literary criticism would be far less populated with conflicting interpretations of "what authors mean" and "what authors meant" than it is!!! (This is said with humor.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please just confirm what it is that I am required to do as a result of your decision/closing of the AN/I, so that I can understand it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 448: Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others (archived version link). I have returned and do see that it is at the very top where the conclusion is; I had actually read your whole discussion with the others and it stressed archiving too. It does not matter that much to me re: whether the use of archiving for 96 hours/4 days is or is not a "requirement"; it's handy to use a bot. I might change the 96 hours/4 days back to 48 hours/2 days, if that is acceptable under the terms of the AN/I ruling (at top of it), which I think now that I have looked at it that way, it is. What do you yourself suggest/prefer? Just wondering. --NYScholar (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've revised the archive bot back to conform to the suggestions in the sec. below, following the material given me for the template. Sorry again for the additional miscommunication/misunderstanding. It was definitely not intentional on my part. I am doing my best under what I think everyone might agree have been and are still rather trying and tiresome circumstances. --NYScholar (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot

As I suggested you use an archive bot, I'll explain the one I use. The one I use is Misszabot III, for which the instructions are at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Here would be the material to add at the top of this page to set it up to archive, with #22 the current archive, after 48 hours, and a maximum archive size of 100Kb. The bot will update the counter whenever an archive grows to 100Kb of text.

{{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(48h) |archive = User talk:NYScholar/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 22 |maxarchivesize = 100K }}

That will be invisible on this page, but trigger that bot to archive any thread that 1) has a timestamp and 2) is at least 48 hours since the last post. You may (this is clearly optional but helpful) also want to put a notice about bot archiving on your page. You could use {{AutoArchivingNotice}}, perhaps {{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=2}}, or write something prettier yourself. GRBerry 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful guidance and suggestions (I wish that someone had given me this kind of constructive assistance earlier! [perhaps more the reason for having an adopt-a-user template!?]); I'm trying the bot (with revisions of the 48h and 2 days in the template examples to 96h and 4 days, in conformity with John Carter's closing AN/I decision. I don't know if that can be altered now or at any time to 48h and 2 days, e.g., but perhaps it can be. [In the meantime, this current talk page will have some "trial archiving runs" (so to speak).] Perhaps John Carter or another administrator will advise about this matter (the use of the archiving bot required of this talk page/me by the AN/I). He hasn't yet had an opportunity to respond to my questions about it posted earlier apparently. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Related technical question: Before the AN/I closing, I had already created and set up archive page 21; it will remain empty given this current bot template? I suppose that I could manually split a previous archive page and move the stuff from 20 to 21 to deal w/ that inconsistency in numbering of the archive pages? Or, should I delete my current page 21 (which is empty of current content) and change the number in the bot template to "21"? Thanks for answering to whoever does. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked enough to see that there is a #21, not what the contents were. If you just set the counter to 21, the bot will start by filling that up, using the existing content at the top. The bot doesn't apply or recognize footers, to the best of my knowledge, so if you want footers you can edit them in by hand when the bot moves on to the next archive. There are other optional parameters for the bot, documented on the how to page linked above, that you can fiddle with. I don't use any of them myself, so I can't help from experience, but I can attempt to answer questions by looking at that documentation. GRBerry 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, GRBerry; done. I forgot how one puts a check mark in a comment. I once knew, but I was told I was using that wrong, so I haven't used it since. If you wish to, please put a check mark before the words "Thanks again" in this comment, so that I can be reminded of how it works. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still blocked; cannot edit the archive page 21 to take out the templates now. May try to do later, or any admin. can do it for me know if preferred. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there, I am willing to adopt you. Are you interested? Ecoleetage (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. But are you sure? (Have you read the AN/I and my current talk page and noticed how some people find me difficult to work with? And are you aware that I will be away from editing for probably very long periods of time beginning later today?) Do you think our language differences might be prove difficult or do you think that they won't matter in a mentor situation? As with the bot question, some of what I might need further help with involves technical expertise with format things like bots (which I have virtually no experience with at all--except for the new archive bot just added today); until today was a "virgin" bot user--and also people want a mentor to give me help with greater succinctness, less wordiness and not seeming "condescending" to others in my edit comments. The quality of the editing of content itself is not really an issue, it's the so-called interpersonal (online) exchanges [which have led to a lot of misinterpretation and stressful conflict for all involved]. If you want to explore the record, it is very long. So, I ask again, are you sure?! (There is a ";)" there a bit.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

added the bracketed further clarification. A thing that I do that no one seems to like either. --NYScholar (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. I have asked John Carter if I could qualify as an adopter. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) [Wouldn't you know it!] Almost funny; I just went over to add a comment on your talk page to say that I had replied here and couldn't do it, because my log in identity (and of course IP add.) are blocked; I had actually forgotten. If you adopt me, I think that these get unblocked. Please check with John Carter or another admin. about that, if I don't understand the process of unblocking. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps JC will advise me re: my previous questions about this process. Thanks again. Look forward to (future?) interaction w/ you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please officially confirm that you accept my offer of adoption. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I officially confirm that I accept your (generous) offer of adoption. I hope that I don't prove to become too much of a "challenge". But, I must reassure you that responding to you thus far has been the only "fun" that I have had in Wikipedia in the past several days!! --NYScholar (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I put an Adopted Userbox at the top of the page. I have also alerted John Carter. Thanks. Oh, if you can, e-mail me through Wikipedia (go to my User Page and contact me via the toolbox on the left side of the screen). Ecoleetage (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to post an official acceptance somewhere else? (I am blocked, so I can't do it probably). --NYScholar (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh--the first difficulty: I don't use e-mail in Wikipedia (My explanation is above). It's not only the issues I mention above involving privacy of personal identity, etc.; but in this kind of situation, because I get so much e-mail that e-mail professional correspondence takes up so much of my time, that I would rather keep it to a minimum otherwise. There are sometimes whole days when my schedule gets de-railed by e-mail correspondence, since I tend to answer everyone immediately. There are also extended periods of time when I am not online, and I do have to get offline now. So if we can manage this mentorship w/o using e-mail that would be better for me. Can it be done w/o using e-mail? (I've got real time pressures in the next few weeks particularly--scroll up to explanations of why the "busy" template and "wikibreak" template are on this current talk page. Thanks.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I have to go offline for a while. If John Carter doesn't come around shortly, put {{unblock|your reason here}} on the bottom of your page, stating that you should be unblocked as you met the requirements of the ANI ruling. I will be in touch later. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to find some e-mail account where I have no personal identity issues; right now, I don't have such a one; even my g-mail account is a person-identity-based one. I have several AOL account screen names linked to my real-name screen identity in AOL, some of which I rarely if ever have used; I might be able to explore that possibility. Right now, however, I have no "e-mail account" associated with Wikipedia, so when I went to the toolbox and clicked on "E-mail this user" that's what happened. I know that I couldn't handle volume of e-mail if "E-mail this user" enables everyone in Wikipedia to e-mail me though; it would be a nightmare!!.... --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would need a second lifetime to deal with it! --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request/unblocked

{{subst:unblock|Met requirements of the ANI ruling}}

Comment I have agreed to adopt this editor and help him improve his Wiki ways. I have also alerted John Carter, the blocking admin, of this decision. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for attempt to unblock my Wikipedia account, John Carter; however, at the moment, my log-in identity (and possibly my IP address) remain blocked; I tried to delete the templates from archive page 21 and still cannot log on to that page to do it. Thanks if you can fix this problem so the proper date/time stamp shows up in the block log too. (There may be a server lag as well preventing the unblocking to take effect immediately.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Block log at this moment, shows no unblocking. --NYScholar (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the error message that I get when I try to edit archive page 21 format to remove the current templates (which I will probabl try to re-add manually after automatic archiving of that page occurs--if nec.). Edit message. --NYScholar (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To admins: It looks to me as though the IP add also needs unblocking (as well as log in identity). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Give it another go -- it should work now. I just saw that John Carter took care of the unblocking for the account and IP. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PS When you can, leave a message on my Talk Page! I want to be the first person you contact in your newly free state! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks. Fixed archive 21, in prep. for automatic bot archiving in future. I can finally go offline (I kept getting orange box messages and stayed on to respond. If/when I am going to do anything further in Wikipedia that involves interaction with other Wikipedia users, I will advise you first that I am about to do so. That may not be for quite some time. I am now behind in work schedule and must catch up, eat, rest, etc.--basically, live.... I appreciate your willingness to take me on as my mentor; I hope that you won't be disappointed at my lack of activity in Wikipedia; it is a function of having a great deal of work to do, being away (most of the rest of this week, in and out of home location), and needing to mull over how to deal with this situation in the future. I would not venture into contributing any content to Wikipedia articles at this point. If/when I do, I will probably feel a great deal of trepidation, so I haven't resolved that yet. Needless to say, I would feel very "watched" and not very free to contribute. So I will have to figure out how to deal with such inevitable feelings of discomfort (later). Thank you again! --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) How nice of you! Will do!! --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good beginnings!

Okay, we will pick up the mentoring when we are both back online. I am soooooo happy to see that awful situation is over. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Enjoy the offline time. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Swag Offer

NYScholar. As it seems you've been run out of the Dark Knight page, would you be interested in some swag from the film? It seems you're a fan. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, FilmFan69. Actually, I wouldn't describe myself as "a fan" [of Batman films, if that's what you mean, or of this particular Batman film]. I just happened upon this article some time ago as a result of having done some work on Heath Ledger. I am going to see the film as a result of having learned more about it in the course of researching the subjects (outside of Wikipedia, not just inside of Wikipedia). As I say, I will not be editing that Wikipedia article any further as a result of my experience of the past week in editing it; many of my comments have been relegated to a talk archive page; the context is there. The content of the talk page (current one) is not chronologically sequenced in the same manner that it used to be, as some of the material was moved (selectively?) to an archived talk page. For past discussions in which I participated earlier, one needs to go to the archived material. I will no longer be commenting in the talk page(s) of that article on the film. Thanks anyway for your offer. --NYScholar (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey, don't worry about typos or whatever -- I am not grading you.

Okay, let me ask: why are you on Wikipedia? What are your interests? Are you here to write articles, expand existing articles, participate in discussions on the merits of existing offerings, fight vandalism, etc? Tell me why you are interested in this project and I can point you in the right directions. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I hope not to disappoint you, Ecoleetage, but I am mostly offline, and as I alerted you on your own talk page, I stopped in very briefly only to see how my new archive bot is functioning (to see if it was indeeed functioning), which it appears to be, for the most part, though there may be some comments that appear in the archive out of the order of their original posting due to the way it functions. In terms of my future possible interests in this Wikipedia project, that is precisely what I am going to reconsider over this summer/fall. I do not currently know what I will decide to do. My interests are recorded via my "contributions" link over the years; sometimes I simply have worked on making corrections to misinformation or faulty sources or lack of sources (by providing some) when working on one article in Wikipedia serendipitously led me (via Wikilinks) to another article that had problems that needed immediate attention. I will not be able to take the time to do that kind of work anymore, for a variety of reasons, notably: (1) my past unpleasant experiences editing in Wikipedia via such administrative situations as just was concluded in this week's AN/I (my comments are above and/or archived by now); and (2) my need to work on non-Wikipedia projects (my own extremely-important priorities).

As I say, I hope that you are not disappointed; but I will be offline after posting this reply.

My explanation of my academic training, fields of expertise (and interests) has already been archived by the new bot in archive page 21; my user boxes also relate to my interests; and there is some related explanations of my perspectives as an academic editor in the copyright issues user subpage (linked at top).

Generally speaking, in the past, I have worked on improving articles, especially their documentation through reliable sources, and the article in which I participated in a good article review (which took a very long time) represents some of my allied subject-area interests (explained in archive page 21 now). Given my own past experiences in Wikipedia, I am not currently and I expect would never be interested in any kind of administrative work in Wikipedia, and, also given my past experience, it is unlikely that I would participate in any further editing of Wikipedia policy/guideline project pages or comment in their talk pages. So, if I were to participate in editing Wikipedia in the future, it would be, I project, extremely limited. (I reserve the possibility that if an article or two that I worked on in the past of continuing interest to me becomes severely compromised, I might return to correct the problem; but, right now, I do not even want to take my time to do that, and leave that kind of monitoring to those who try to prevent vandalism in Wikipeda, which I believe is unduly rampant.) At this time, I will not be contributing at all to the content of Wikipedia; that may change in the future after I have time to consider this matter and until possible further notice. --NYScholar (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Logging out. --NYScholar (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at least you are logging out without the being under the cloud of being indefinitely blocked. When or if you wish to return, I will be here for you. Be well and enjoy the offline world! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To Ecoleetage

Thanks again, Ecoleetage! (Updated message on your talk page when logged on earlier to check my archiving bot, which seems to be working okay.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

While logged on briefly now, I made a very minor typographical correction to article I've worked on for over two years. That kind of correction really does not seem controversial in any way, and I cited WP:MOS (for an en-dash between years in dates). You might want to take a look (it's in my "contributions" link). --NYScholar (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

After returning to see if the archive bot is functioning properly after format change to this talk page, decided that maybe the curved brackets at end which was part of some earlier code might be interfering, so changed way it's coded so the "message box" has no code after it. While here noticed a problem in infobox of article worked on in past (where editing summaries and talk pages [now archived] had explained the reasons sufficiently) and undid the change by an anon IP user. Format for such infobox is that the particular image does not pertain to the entire subject and is already used to illustrate a pertinent sec. of the article, as explained in both prev. edit summary(ies) and archived discussion. The edit summ. for the change is also in my current contributions history; see link if need to examine that. It's a change of format not content of article. --NYScholar (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Before logging out again, I have also made some format changes (relatively minor) in an image description; see "contributions". --NYScholar (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey there. If you see vandalism, report it to WP:AIV. My involvement with fighting vandalism is fairly low energy: mostly Level 1 and Level 2 warnings to would-be miscreants that I discover in New Page Patrol and Welcoming Committee glad-handing. When I find vandals, I always alert the AIV board and let them handle it. FWIW, I might recommend giving the Dark Knight-related articles a rest -- considering what you've been through.

I should also ask: what other topics interest you? And what keeps bringing you back to Wikipedia? Are you here to write/edit/discuss? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just come back daily to check the achiving bot, as briefly as possible, and in the course of doing that noticed some relatively-minor errors that I corrected, some of which are just matters of consistency in the already-existing content of the articles. I'm not touching the article on The Dark Knight (despite problems that I perceive in it); however, Heath Ledger is another matter; I worked on that article for a very long time; please see that talk page if you need information. I agree that, given what I've been through, I would not involve myself in making any controversial changes relating to it; the changes are just consistent with the facts already documented in the sources cited in the article and I provided a couple of more direct Wikilinks than what were there (so that they appear in blue rather than red; others may still need further clean up). I won't be filing any reports in administrative pages, however. The situation of GRAWP-related vandalism that I mentioned to you on your talk page today is one that the article was fully protected from recently until its recent semi-protection. Cleaning up editing history requires administrative involvement. That past vandalism was discussed on the article's talk page as well. I will take your FWIW recommendation, as it is worth a lot to me. Back offline otherwise. --NYScholar (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had checked the vandalism report page before contacting you on your talk page. That particular GRAWP vandal is already indefinited blocked in Wikipedia; the residual problem (despite that) is that the offensive material remains in editing histories of articles the vandal attacked; getting rid of it by purging the editing histories is what users have been seeking help from administrators to do. It is a long-standing ongoing problem which I and others have brought to the attention of administrators. I won't be taking my own time to do that anymore, but I wondered if you might be able to contact an administrator to help out with it in my absence. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to lend a hand in your absence. Thanks Ecoleetage (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25