User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Please explain

[1] Where are the personal attacks? It's a completely false accusation and should be retracted immediately. —Moondyne 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to this. You have posted apparently unfounded accusations that an administrator has engaged in personal attacks on that talk page. Please either retract them or justify your accusation with provision of diffs. Unfounded and untrue accusations of personal attacks may in itself be considered a personal attack, so please do respond to Moondyne's query at your earliest possible convenience. Sarah 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted my response in detail below, with links to "diffs." If it is not there anymore, it is because someone else is editing this page. Material that I have posted on it and intended to leave on it has been deleted from it. See bold bracketed comment about that below. --NYScholar (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Please see sec. #Disrupting my talk page (I typed it incorrectly below, and I have to fix it so that the link works; and I did use "show preview," but you can't get to sections in a section of talk page in the same talk page in "show preview" mode.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "you can't get to sections in a section of talk page in the same talk page in "show preview" mode" means or what it has to do with Moondyne's request above for an explanation of your accusations, but regardless, please post the diffs in this section where Moondyne has asked the question and quite reasonably expects an answer.

I cannot find the diffs you claim you posted somewhere below, but it is incredibly difficult to follow the edits you make to this page because of the sheer number you are making. We're talking about something in the vicinity of 130 edits by you alone to this page only in the last couple of days. So if you have diffs that show personal attacks by Moondyne, please post them here in this section for everyone to see. If you have none, please retract your accusation poste haste. Thank you. Sarah 14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

---

My explanation and further response

[This matter relates to demands by Pairadox (not Moondyne) that I use "show preview"; I had already said that I do use "show preview"; the matter relates to the editing of Heath Ledger, where a lot of citations and citations templates needed correction (which is also why I continually refer in this talk page to the need to post such comments in the talk pages of the articles, not here; the contexts for the comments are actually in those article talk pages.) Pairadox and others introduced formatting errors in the citations, which I was occasionaly finding myselftrying to correct while editing sections at times, but could not see the texts of the notes citations if I used "show preview" while still in that section being edited. So I would have to return to the "full article" mode to see the citations. --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

When one is editing a section of a talk page, or an article page, and there is a link to another section of the page in the section that one is editing, one cannot access the linked internal section; similarly, as I've already explained below and in material that Sarah deleted in her refactoring of this talk page to an earlier version [it turns out], one cannot access Notes citations texts (which function also as part of separate sections), and, therefore, one cannot see those sections (the note citations) while using "show preview" in editing a section.

It is interesting that people are demanding perfection in my talk page responses while complaining that I edit them too much; many people's comments in talk pages and also their changes to articles are rife with typographical errors which they do not correct; if asked, most of us will return to respond in talk pages of articles; in this case, I wasn't really sure what Sarah was asking, but I figured it out after realizing that she had deleted my actual explanation of the citations problem in "show preview" (which I repeated later in this page and linked to the "diffs. so one could see my original explanation relating to notes citations inaccessibility in "show preview" editing mode). --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted and unauthorized deletions of my own comments made on this talk page

The full explanation that I wrote of this "glitch" in Wikipedia's "show preview" feature was deleted when Sarah reverted this current talk page to an earlier version in order to "restore" material that she claims that I archived "prematurely" (there is no clearcut guideline for when to archive a talk page discussion; it is also not generally possible to know when one is "over"; the whole concept of "reviving" a discussion that has already been archived is predicated on the view that such "ended" discussions might be "started up" again, with no harm done to anyone.)

I archived the talk page when I did because I thought (1) Sandstein gave me the green light to do so; and (2) Sarah did not appear to be returning to respond to it; and (3) I had nothing further to say about it either; I was done talking about it; the so-called "conversation" was, I thought, over.

I explain my perspective at the time below and Sarah and others accuse me of lying. In my view, calling me a "liar" as they do here is not only uncivil and a personal attack but it is also a violation of WP:AGF. I explain that further below as well. Each explanation that I provide in response to a request for an explanation is further attacked and claimed to be "bogus lies", "crap", "rubbish", "rot", etc. No one should have to tolerate this kind of "Administrative abuse" in Wikipedia. WP:NPA applies to administrators just as it does to other Wikipedia users who are not administrators. For a perspective: see WP:ANOT.--NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Achtert matter (see further below)

The account that Sarah inserts on this talk page and elsewhere of the "Achtert" matter--which she later called a "red herring" (one of her own devising, I believe) in the WP:ANI--is inaccurate. She claims that I did not make edits that I say I did (and did) make immediately upon learning there was a problem (and that is documented in the talk page that I created for User talk:Aachtert in order to post my apology in; in November, prior to his contacting me directly on my talk page--see archive 16 sec. on "Fact checking"), after getting Sarah's initial query "E-mail?", I edited the talk page of the relevant article, Talk:The MLA Style Manual after guessing what the problem might involve from her cryptic message; on my own, I guessed that it might involve a sentence that I wrote beginning ["If I recall correctly"] (or words to that effect [ed. (NYS): corr. --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]); her reply that the problem did not have to do with an article was actually not correct, because the sentence that the "family member" (Aachtert [I later learned]) of Walter S. Achtert was questioning was indeed then present in the talk page of an article (as it finally became clear to me from his posts in my then current talk page about an archived talk page section, which I had copied and pasted into the article talk page for others' information, and ellided later [with an ellipsis of three dots] after getting the message from Sarah); my sentence had originated in a response that I made to a comment placed on my talk page about that article, and I had copied and pasted it into the talk page of the relevant article; but when I had later archived my then current talk page, I had forgotten that the older version not ellided also was still there (moved to archive 16 after originally posted in current talk page and after I had copied and pasted the same comment in Talk:The MLA Style Manual (etc.). I had used ellipsis there after Aachtert contacted me and referr[ed] him to that change. When he explained which Oct. 7, 2007 post he was referring to [the older version in archive 16]; I realized that it actually appeared in both my current talk page and in the article talk page. Later when Aachtert explained that he was referring to the archived (16) version of the sentence, I elided the problematic part of that one as well [in archive 16]. The veracity of this account (my account) is borne out by examining my editing history in my talk page, the talk page archive 16, and the talk page of the article Talk:The MLA Style Manual, as well as by referring to User talk:Aachtert. This is what I explain below; apparently, perhaps not going to the links I have provided, Sarah does not understand what I did do to correct the problem(s) brought to my attention by her and by Aachtert, and she claims that I am "lying" (engaging in "blatant lies", etc.) She is, however, incorrect; I am truthfully presenting the history of this matter and others throughout this talk page. Her own refactoring of this page confused me into thinking that she had copied and pasted the archived material that she "restored" from my archive [18]; actually, I learned later, from her, that what she actually did was revert an earlier version of this current talk page and that is how my subsequent comments were deleted or lost. Again, she (and then her fellow administrators) claim that I am lying; however, they are wrong. I am truthfully presenting what I thought occurred at the time that I saw the refactored page via the edits. --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC) [Corrected and added some additional info. in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC); --NYScholar (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]

[Also: one needs to keep in mind that the question that Sarah posed to me asked if I could provide any further information about the matter queried, and I responded that I could not do so, as I had been unable to find any further information about it (neither could she) (not only because I don't use e-mail in or with Wikipedia; I had nothing further to add about it); I do know at least one (cited) source that gave me the impression that I remembered; it was the editorial history supplied in a July 2002 "Foreword" (by Phyllis Franklin, then the exec. dir. of the MLA but now deceased), a source that I list in the article on MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (6th ed.), which is based on the information in the previously-published 2nd ed. of The MLA Style Manual; Walter S. Achtert had co-authored the first ed. of the MLA Style Manual and also the first, 2nd, and 3rd eds. of the MLA Handbook; but his name dropped off as co-author after that, and Joseph Gibaldi was listed alone as author of both. Unable to find Achtert listed and references to him as a "former" co-author or co-editor of these works, I thought that he was the "late" former editor, because I thought that otherwise he would be listed somewhere, referred to somewhere as credited with these subsequent editions of these works he had originally co-authored/co-edited. But my sense was incorrect [I realized later]; I could find no references to him in various literature other than these publications and some others; nothing after around 1986. He seemed to drop off the face of the earth, so to speak, and later, his brother's reference to his reclusive state enabled me to understand why I had that sense. [What I "recalled" ("if I recall correctly")] was incorrect, I learned from Aachtert's post, and that enabled me to make the correction to what had been an honest inadvertent error (false assumption based on the sources I consulted and cited in these two Wikipedia articles; I had added and/or corrected sources in both articles; see their editing history). One can see evidence for this account in the links already provided to my archive 16 and the talk pages of both articles as well. --NYScholar (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

I really do not know who these administrators think that they are dealing with. I am not an inexperienced young student who has not yet taken courses in research writing in college or who has not yet finished coursework in research; such Wikipedia users generally do not know how to do advanced-level research. I am an academic scholar with over forty years of teaching research and related research experience leading to my own publications and editing those of others. It is enormously disrespectful for them not only to accuse me of "lying", but also for some of them to state or to suggest otherwise through innuendo and further falsehoods that I only "claim" to be a "scholar"; as if my "userboxes" are also not accurate. Let me assure everyone that they are accurate, and that there would be no way that I could have produced the work that I have done in Wikipedia articles that I have edited if I did not have the education and training and experience as an academic professor and advanced-level academic scholar that I do have. My editorial contributions throughout Wikipedia attest to my ability to do this kind of research writing and documentation. My knowledge of the differences between academic scholarly protocols and Wikipedia's "citation styles" is based on my training and experience of these forty-plus years.

Moreover, I have no motive to "lie" about these matters. My only reason for editing articles in Wikipedia is "to get things right"; when I see misinformation and phony or missing citations in Wikipedia or confusing format of notes and bibliography entries, I take the time to make corrections because I fear that English-language students all over the world and others will get misinformation from Wikipedia if I and others like me do not correct these problems. (Check my "contributions.")

I am not a cowering student trying to cover up "crimes" (as administrators term my "behavior" [as they present it] in places) in Wikipedia. First of all, there are no "crimes" in Wikipedia. Though recently I encountered a comment in an article about Wikipedia claiming the opposite (that Wikipedia is a kind of "free for all" regulation-less place for students to write whatever they want), Wikipedia is heavily rule-laden; all of these administrators seem to have little else to do than to pounce on what they perceive as "offenders" of these "rules" (Wikipedia policies [e.g., core principles] and guidelines). Nevertheless, these policies and guidelines are not "laws" (in the real world of non-virtual reality), and there are no "criminals" among Wikipedia users, other than the plagiarists and copyright-violators, who are breaking U.S. and international laws in what they steal from others to insert in Wikipedia and other Wikipedia-related projects. They are alleged criminals, not I.

[I really do the best I can to inform myself about and to follow WP and guidelines. Often the guidelines particularly are contradictory and constantly changing. What may be correct procedure one day or even one minute may suddenly become incorrect the next day or even minute. Other academics have told me that they wonder why anyone would do work in Wikipedia if "anyone can come along and change it," wipe out that work, and make it into some wrong version. More and more often, I am wondering that myself. The problem of Wikipedia:Vandalism is rampant, consumes enormous amount of administrators' and other editors' time, and seems hardly under control. It's like holding the wolves at bay temporarily; ultimately, they overrun the sheep pens and devour the sheep, leaving a great mess. (Added.) Treating good-faith editors like me as if we were vandals is really inexcusable. --NYScholar (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

This whole subject in which these administrators have taken flight into wrongful "behavior" (behavioral "conduct") in Wikipedia is manufactured from their false assumptions about what I did, what I thought at the time, and what I did to correct the problems pointed out to me. I have done everything "above board"--[including learning how to archive my current talk page periodically after I was originally asked to do that on an early now-archived talk page]--in the open, with a clear record, and I even created a user talk page for Aachtert (then a new user) so that I could post my explicit apology to him as soon as I realized what had actually occurred (on the same day that he pointed out the problem to me, Dec. 5, 2007). I have presented the facts about what I thought when I thought it (in editing summaries and discussions on the talk pages of articles and other users); I have explained how I responded to what I learned from others' comments posted on my talk page at the time (early Nov. 2007 and Dec. 2007 about an edit that occurred initially on Oct. 7, 2007).

Given the amount of effort and time that I have devoted to setting straight the record on this matter, on other (unrelated) matters, and on other issues raised in this current talk page and my talk archive, I object all the more strenously to these administrators' various insinuations and outright statements that I am lying or being dishonest: the opposite is true: I am telling the truth as I understand it to be (based on my editing experience at the time). The wrenching out of their original contexts of my statements has resulted in distortions based on false assumptions and false speculations made by these administrators, who really do not know what I think and intend and feel at all. They are not experts on my thoughts and intentions and feelings. I am. I know what I thought, intended, and felt about these matters at the time (in the past) and now (in the present). I preface what follows with this explanation due to the extreme misinterpretations of the record being presented by these administrators and others throughout this page and the WP:ANI filed by Hesperian (who blocked me and had the block overturned), which has led to further personal attacks against me, which should all be deleted from Wikipedia space on the basis of both WP:NPA and WP:BLP. These administrators' leaping to false conclusions without any actual basis for them tarnishes not only my integrity and reputation but it also tarnishes the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia, which should not set up its administrative processes in ways that this kind of maligning of most-often responsible editors can occur. Occasionally, even an experienced editor such as I can inadvertently make an "honest mistake." When the specific mistake is brought to our attention, we may do our best to correct it (as I have done, do, and will do). To suggest otherwise is to malign us. One should really look at an error or a few errors in the context of all that one has gotten correct. To do otherwise is to skew the context of one's entire editing record inside (and outside) Wikipedia. Professional editors like me have extensive records outside Wikipedia, but because we use anonymous log-in identities in Wikipedia, our work outside it is not known. One looks at the product that we produce in Wikipedia (the articles) for evidence of the work that we generally do and can do. But to jump on one sentence here or there as "proof" of bad editing is absurd. What about all the "proof" of the good editing in countless other sentences in the articles listed in "contributions"? --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Restoring a user's talk page to an earlier version without permission

Copying and pasting material from a page in Wikipedia without deleting it does not appear in the editing history. Reverting to an earlier version of a current talk page does not look any different in its results from copying and pasting w/o deleting from a talk achive page. I did not detect the difference until later, when Sarah told me (below) what she actually did to "restore" this current talk page (to put back on it material that I had archived). The fact that she does not "care" that she lost my own edits in the process of this "restoration" (reverting) is extremely disturbing to me, and I believe that it is not an attitude befitting an administrator of Wikipedia. In terms of who is "bullying" whom, I think it very clear that the user being "bullied" in this whole episode is actually me, not the administrators. --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning re: disruption

• [Please see my own section below: #Disrupting my talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]*

NYScholar, your behaviour at this user talk page has become disruptive. It is not really your talk page; it is everyone's, for use in talking to you. Your constant removal of legitimate messages, along with your request that people not post here, amount to a refusal to communicate with your peers. Unfortunately, there are plenty of reasons why people need to, and have every right to, talk to you, so long as you intend to remain a part of this community. For example, I notice that you accused Moondyne of a personal attack, and when he posted here to ask you to substantiate or withdraw that accusation, you simply removed the message unreplied.

I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators. If it continues, I may act to prevent this disruption by blocking you from editing, for a time.

I have restored Moondyne's message above. It requires a considered response.

Feel free to archive this message once you've read it. Hesperian 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This "user talk page" is "my" "user talk page" in the sense that I am the "user" identified on it. In that sense, it is "my user talk page"; in Wikipedia one refers to "Hesperian's talk page", "NYScholar's talk page" and so on. One knows what I mean when I say "my talk page": it is pointing to which talk page one is referring to. Wikipedia provides "leaway" for user talk pages: it says so right in descriptions of "user space." --NYScholar (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[Note: with ref. to "constant removal of legitimate messages": I have actually deleted very few messages and they were not ones that I considered "legitimate" for reasons that I give throughout my explanations for deleting them. Also, according to WP:TPG on WP:UP, it is permissible for one to delete comments from one's user talk page, including "warnings." There is no policy that deleting comments from one's user talk page is "disruptive"; there are different guidelines for article and other talk pages than there are for Wikipedia:User talk pages. --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

I have repeatedly asked this person [Moondyne] not to keep posting these misleading messages on my talk page. The person will not stop. I responded cordially to a request for a "favour" (see archive 18), thanked the person on that person's own talk page and received nothing but grief since then.

[Ed. (NYS) note (15 Feb. 2008): See: User talk:Moondyne#Response: My actual comment being quoted there was more recently archived by the "bot" at that user talk page; see the archive for it.Diffs. and User talk:Moondyne/Archive 12#Response; I had posted a note in M's then-current talk page saying that I was moving his quoting my comment and his response to that quotation to his own talk page from mine. --NYScholar (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

[cont. of my own prev. comment:] I have had it with this person. There is no further response that I can make. I will archive this discussion tomorrow. After spending an enormous amount of my time correcting errors and trying to improve an article, I am tired, and I do not want to deal with this other person. I suggest that you read the comments on the person's own talk page and at Talk:Heath Ledger and get a fuller and fairer picture of what is going on here. I will archive all of this tomorrow. But I will spend no more of my time responding to that other user, who does not recognize cordiality or courteous behavior and, in my view, is violating WP:CIVIL. (I spent over a half hour responding to the requested "favour" and changed both my user page and my talk page presentation in doing so. Those changes are the only ones that I want to take my time to make (and they were considerable changes). I am turning back to my other non-Wikipedia work for the rest of the weekend (at least). Good day! --NYScholar (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as what user talk pages are for, I've linked in two places above already to WP:TPG; I've read them, and I know what they are. Talk pages are not for harassing other users, and that is what that other user has been using my talk page for lately: see Archive 18, where at first I excepted that user from such behavior; right after I did that, the user started harassing me on my current talk page. If the user keeps doing it, I will keep deleting the comments and/or archiving them, or moving them to the user's own talk page. I've given fair warning in "N.B." above (which has been there for months in one form or another.) Good day! I'm logging out. --NYScholar (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't post warnings lightly; I had already reviewed the situation thoroughly. It is entirely reasonable that you be required to substantiate or withdraw your accusation, even if it does take a few minutes for you to do so. My position remains that Moondyne's message requires a considered response. Hesperian 12:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What "accusation"? The person [Moondyne] is upsetting me; I'm entitled to say that and to ask the person to stop doing it. I consider continually posting on a talk page when one has been asked not to do so "harassment." I've made myself very clear. I also explained that I had other work to do that I would rather be doing, so I will turn to it. Against my own better judgment relating to my own time constraints, I spent the entire night working on correcting errors and trying to improve the article Heath Ledger; I have run out of time or energy or desire to (1) work on it anymore and (2) to deal with others who mostly must engage in talk page discussion and don't spend as much time actually working to improve the articles. There is a difference. I'll look at the link later. This is my own response to what the person is generally asking me: I made my complaint clear on the person's own talk page: the complaint is: I've asked you not to keep upsetting me on my talk page, and yet you keep doing it. That should be clear enough. The person's editing summaries about my work breach WP:CIVIL and the person cited an early version of a passage that I later revised as if it had not been revised, describing it in negative terms, which breaches other WP. I've already also made that clear. What the person is doing is uncivil and a form of taunting. User space is user space, and user talk pages give users some leaway in how they present them. I have explained how I prefer to use mine, and that I do not want to discuss how to improve articles on my talk page. Those discussions are for the talk pages of articles. --NYScholar (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You have stated on Talk:Heath Ledger: "I would appreciate it if the above user (Moondyne) (and some others) would stop these ridiculous personal attacks". That is clearly and unambiguously an accusation against Moondyne. My position remains the same: it is disruptive for you to make such an accusation, then ignore a request to either prove it or withdraw it. Hesperian 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an explanation just now and lost it.

[Note: See Diffs. 190163577 andDiffs. 190165587. (I had responded to these demands); I had run into "editing conflict(s)" and rather than cutting and pasting the lost edit(s), I re-composed some of the explanation(s) later. See earlier attempt to explain how I was taking Moondyne's refusal to respect what I was asking him to do: not to keep posting on my talk page matters that concerned editing an article; I considered his repeatedly ignoring my expressed requests a sign of personal disrepect and used the general phrase "ridiculous personal attacks" to apply to it, to the pejorative references to my edits in his editing summaries and also to the same tactics by "others," whom I did not name at that time but who include Pairadox, whose comments I had been having to delete from my talk page after reading them; I regarded (and still regard) such continuing comments to be forms of personal harassment (focusing on the contributor instead of on the content), which have indeed bullying by administrators and others, which intensified since then, leading to great personal distress and discomfort for me. --NYScholar (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]

(Cont. of my prev. comment.) The beginning of the focus on me instead of on the edit (violating WP:NPA: focus on the content not the contributor) began with the labeling of a subsequently-revised sentence as a "rant" and "fluff" etc.Diffs. and moved toward a further breach of WP:CIVIL with the user's focusing back on the same earlier version of the sentence and even linking to it (to have the descriptions show up again) rather than to focus on the fact that the sentence had already been revised (by me) and quoted on Talk:Heath Ledger for further discussion. Then the user came to my talk page asked me to do him/her a "favour," involving changing the layout of my talk page, which I spent a half hour or so doing, after which I thanked the user on his/her own talk page. Without any acknowledgment that I had even complied with the requested "favour," the user then started posting still more stuff on my talk page even though I had courteously asked the user not to do so and s/he continued to do so above, despite my continuing requests on his/her talk page not to do so. Completely disregarding another user's request for desisting from this is in my view an implicit personal attack, a clear sign of total disrespect for another's clearly-expressed wishes. I also had to delete some harassment from another user. Focusing on me, the contributor, instead of on the actual nature of the edits themselves (without negatively labeling them as a "rant" or "fluff" when they are actually good-faith edits) is, in my view, a violation of WP:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA (the admonition to focus on the content not on the contributor). Going to someone's talk page to ask a "favour" and then not acknowledging compliance with such a requested favour and going back to complain further, despite being asked several times not to do so, is, in my view, a veiled personal attack, harassment, and a violation of WP:CIVIL. --21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

See the clearcut knowledge that the user had that the "diffs." link s/he gave to rehash an already-revised matter was to an obsolete version of a sentence: Talk:Heath Ledger#Deletion of pertinent well-sourced material and its sources and [will add diffs. link in moment].Diffs. To me there seems to be a personal animus involved in that maneuver, and I took it as a personal attack on me, which was totally unnecessary, gratuitous, and not in any way related to the then-current editing of the article in a manner to improve it, as the sentence had already been revised (improved), whether or not the user liked the more recent version any better than the earlier version; the rehashing violated WP:AGF (as well).] --NYScholar (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [added link to diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to come to this page to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. [2] It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Wikipedia before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Wikipedia must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. Sarah 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary discussion. It was already discussed. [It was an entirely-inadvertent error based on an error in a source.] [Ed. (NYS): I have now reconstructed (by looking again at my Archive 16 link and also following a link to user talk for "Aachtert" (not "Achtert")] see now that originally my comment (found now in Archive 16) was prefaced by "If I recall correctly"; when I realized what I recalled (from a source that I could not find later, despite much searching for it and finding no additional information about Walter S. Achtert, even having checked both the MLA official site, its publications--hard copy and online--and Lexis-Nexis) was incorrect, I fixed the problem as soon as possible,[Ed. (NYS: Right after I saw the early Nov. 2007 message "E-mail?" from Sarah: Diffs..] and I also posted a reply to a user posting as "Aachtert": See [3].] I explicitely apologized for the error (more than once), which was an error that I found in one of the sources that I had consulted. I have actually spoken the the MLA about this matter (I am a lifetime member of that organization). The person in question was a former editor of the MLA Bibliography [Ed. (NYS) corr.: Here I meant to type The MLA Style Manual; typo. corr. --NYScholar (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] whose departure from the MLA is not explained on its site. See the archived talk page discussions about this matter, with all the relevant links: I corrected the problem in the article citations and text and any others relating to it, including talk pages and apologized as soon as I learned of it. (Seldom does one encounter a family member who has been in such infrequent contact with a relative [brother, it was revealed later] that he or she does not know whether or not the person is alive or dead. I guessed at the problem without being in contact via e-mail, and I guessed correctly and made the changes to the article and talk page without even being asked to do so.)

Note well: I do not use personal e-mail in Wikipedia for good reason. I cannot and have no wish to deal with the types of incivility and harassment that I encounter on talk pages of Wikipedia in my professional (personal) e-mail account from people who apparently have nothing better to do than to vandalize Wikipedia or to attack others in talk pages. "Preferences" in Wikipedia exist for the use and protection of Wikipedia users who select them from clearly designed options. I have with good reason and entirely appropriately selected the option of not using e-mail with Wikipedia and Wikipedians. No one should be pressuring me to do so. No one should be suggesting that my choice of not using e-mail is in any way in conflict with WP:POL. It is not. I will be archiving the entire discussion from this point above shortly. One can find it in my archive 18 easily enough. [forgot to log in.] --NYScholar (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think comparing a man distressed about your (false) report of his brother's death, attempting to find out details of said death to "vandals" and people engaging in "incivility and harrassment" is rather offensive and insensitive. I don't really care if you choose to make yourself unavailable by email, however, I do care when I have to deal with distressed people who are forced to create an account specifically to talk to you, come to this page and reveal personal information about themselves and their families in order to communicate such concerns to you, only to have you archive the conversation unreasonably quickly, expecting such a person to root around your userspace trying to work out your very eccentric behaviour. Sarah 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the residual material relating to this matter, please see my Archived talk page: MLA Style Manual. The reason that there are ellipses relates to WP:BLP. See Talk:The MLA Style Manual for the related discussion. The error itself is excised pursuant to WP:BLP. I provided the necessary ellipses after learning of the problem via the post. To rehash it here is not useful. I dealt with it as appropriately as I could. Errors sometimes exist in sources; I edited in good faith and I responded in good faith. This rehashing of a matter that has ellipses in it for reasons of WP:BLP is not helpful. --NYScholar (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful because, despite what you suggest, it was never addressed at the time and it seems an appropriate time to raise it now that other administrators above (Hesperian and Moondyne) have raised their own concerns about your talk page practices. Yes, your false report and inability to cite a source for the material was discussed between you and Mr Achtert, but it certainly wasn't addressed internally and nor was the eccentric way you handled it. Sarah 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[Here is the archive 16 discussion between me and User:Aachtert: Fact Checking. Prior to that is the very short sec. called "E-mail?" from Sarah, which I had found very cryptic. I did what I could at the time, and one can even see my apology in User talk:Aachtert, which Sarah does not mention. Part of my confusion with what they were referring to is that there was more than one "Oct. 7 [2007]" comment that I posted re: The MLA Style Manual, that Sarah's e-mail came in November, and that the post in my talk page from User:Aachtert came in December. Between October 7 and December 5, 2007, I had thought that they would be referring to a reference in the article(s) or talk pages of the articles relating to Achtert's publications for the MLA; I did not learn what User:Aachtert was referring to until December 5, and, as soon as he clarified which comment he was referring to, I responded and deleted it and apologized for any distress it may have caused him: see User talk:Aachtert. I feel that I acted appropriately after being contacted, that I did what I could, but, given that I will do not respond to unsolicited e-mail and do not engage in e-mail re: or with Wikipedia, I had to depend on what she told me initially (very little that did not disclose that it had to do with a comment re: BLP issues; once I realized that a person whom I had thought no longer alive (from what I recalled from reading multiple sources in editing The MLA Style Manual) was actually still living, I immediately applied WP:BLP and ellided (removed) the archive 16 reference that User:Aachtert (I learned only later, in Dec.) was objecting to. I had no idea until yesterday that Sarah was harboring negative views of me (expressed throughout this page now) or that she had left me on a "watch list", Her 2-line reply to me gave me no sense that there remained any difficulty. As Sarah now appears to resent the time spent on this matter (see her posts below too), I will add that, initially, after I saw her post "E-mail?", I myself spent many hours of my time too trying to find more information about Walter S. Achtert; mostly all I could find were redundant references to his MLA publications and some other publications, but no biographical information at all. (As a life member of the MLA, I get its publications, and I checked my library of those first, then all kinds of other sources, and also Lexis-Nexis, all to no avail.) The references that I was finding to the "former" editor of the volume and the omission of his name from the authors/eds. on title pages of later eds. of the MLA publications, which I had already questioned in Talk:The MLA Style Manual#The MLA Style Manual, had given me the (I know now) false impression that he was (at that time) no longer alive (especially since there were no further refs. to him made since 1986 that I found). Later, after the exchange between me and User:Aachtert archived in my talk archive 16, I gleaned from the MLA site that at least it appeared that he had retired from the position that his successor later held; but I could find no more information about him than that. I did try. WP:NOR prohibits using original research as documentation in Wikipedia; and even if I had called the MLA offices to ask questions and learned something more specific (something I did consider doing), I would not have been able to cite that interview in a Wikipedia article; so I rejected doing such "original research; I did, however, spend a lot of time researching him via Lexis-Nexis, and got no further information about him there either (only his publications from approx. 1986 and earlier). The error was, I stress again, totally inadvertent, corrected as soon as possible, and for making the error I apologized appropriately once it became clear which "Oct. 7 [2007]" statement Sarah and User:Aachtert were referring to. In "E-mail?" Sarah had not initially pointed to any specific statement, and so, acting immediately and thinking it was a comment in the article talk page, that is what I intially revised; when I learned from User:Aachtert that he was concerned about a reference in my talk page archive, I revised that as well, using three dots of ellipsis for the incorrect statement pointed out to me in "Fact checking" by User:Aachtert. Though Sarah also (unfairly) accuses me otherwise (below), I did not at that time know whether I could remove material from my talk page archive (delete it) and struck some material out; at the same time, I was aware of changes being made to WP:BLP (heavily contested; espec. WP:BLP#Sources) and, having worked on that project page and discussed issues relating to it in its talk page, I was very cautious about deleting material from my talk page archive ("user space"). But I did immediately (as per WP:BLP) delete the false statement to which User:Aachtert objected specifically; I replaced it with three dots of ellipsis. In my view, I complied with the request and I also issued an apology. To have Sarah come into my current talk page to go take me to task now for something that occurred between October and December 2007 and that I thought was resolved at that time is (again) very upsetting. I am not "embarrassed" by my own behavior in response to the initial posts from Sarah in Nov. and User:Aachtert in Dec.; I handled that in what I regard as an entirely appropriate manner. But I am upset by the false charges to my honesty, integrity, and good faith being made throughout this talk page by others. Being an administrator does not give any user the prerogative to engage in such incivility or to bad-mouth any other user. That is what has been going on in this talk page, over my continual objections. --NYScholar (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)]

I really do not think that you are familiar with the fact that the comment that he referred to was only in my user talk space and that I deleted it immediately after guessing what the problem was (using ellipsis dots): I've already explained that to you months ago now and even reiterated the explanation (see above and archived disc. links there. Even before being asked to refer to the now ellided brief phrase (something like "now deceased"--which had been indicated in my sources for The MLA Style Manual), I had already revised the talk page of the article itself just in case. Instead of continuing to make these absolutely-insulting claims, you need to consult the full record. I am not responsible for errors in sources; I am only responsible for correcting those that I learn of. I did so immediately (in my talk page). At the time, given the message that you left, there would have been no way for me to know what you were talking about, as you had been so cryptic; but I went out of my way to be cautious, and I object to this characterization of the whole situation belatedly. At this point, I am sure that if the person who had contacted you realized that you are extending the discussion of a private concern in this public manner, he would be all the more greatly distressed. As you absolutely know, the error was totally inadvertent, was apologized for at the time (but the material had to be deleted due to the nature of the concern). To drag it up again publicly is to a disservice to the person who initially requested privacy. I don't think that you should ever have posted about it on my talk page. I think that you should have made the correction yourself quietly and explained the matter in general terms. It was also not my responsibility to do "original research" for that man's family member, from whom he was apparently estranged. I was only depending on published material. I was using MLA publications in my possession, MLA sources publicly available on the internet, and even afterward, I spoke with a high-up MLA official this past December at the MLA convention, who actually thanked me for the work that I have done on those articles pertaining to its publications. Enough said in my view. And I will be archiving this discussion in due course. --NYScholar (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I had to keep in mind that there was a possibility that the e-mail message being referred to was bogus or that the post from you (whom I had and have no knowledge of otherwise) was bogus; it seemed very odd at first. Again, it is not Wikipedia policy to require its editors and other users to communicate with Wikipedia or one another via their private e-mail accounts. I have chosen not to do so to avoid spam, to protect my identity from identity theft, and for other personal reasons. I am entitled to my own privacy. --NYScholar (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, as Sarah's own link to a previous version of my talk page clearly indicates Diffs, I said that I was "sorry" (apologized) and acted entirely appropriately to correct the erroreous mention of the man's death (which I had encountered in a source; it was not my invention). (See also: Diffs. There was quite an extensive series of responses that I made to the poster (User:Aachtert) after he stated that he was referring only to a comment in a talk page archive (16) and not in a current talk page of an article or an article mentioning Walter S. Achtert. Moreover, in a moment I will post the message that Sarah left originally in my talk page, which I found extremely cryptic and odd and had no way of verifying the authenticity of the sender of the e-mail that she was asking me to respond to via e-mail, which I don't use in Wikipedia. To do so would compromise my privacy. (will be back to post additional link in a moment). --NYScholar (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[Here is the link to Sarah's original question: "E-mail?", also in my archive 16: Diffs.. My practice in using e-mail (since 1985) is not to reply to unsolicited messages that I receive from people whom I do not know (strangers); every other Wikipedian or Wikipedia user/reader is a stranger to me (I know no one who edits or reads Wikipedia personally). It was not safe for me to engage in e-mail correspondence with anyone involved in that request; I did not know Sarah (and still do not know her) personally; I did not know for certain that the person claiming to be "a family member" of Walter S. Achtert was indeed a family member; there was no way for me to verify that, and, since I also did not and do not know Sarah, her posting this request in my talk page did not give me any confidence in its verifiability. I was not familiar at all (and still am not) with the process of e-mailing Wikipedia (since I do not do that), and the request seemed to come out of left field to me. I was understandably cautious, and I am still understandably cautious. I still find it very odd that a close family member of someone would not have an independent means of determining whether or not the person was alive or dead. So that discrepancy screeched out, "Proceed with caution." In view of the cryptic nature of the message and my inability to ascertain its veracity, I did the best I could, and I was courteous. But it is not my job to do "original research" about Walter S. Achtert or anyone else; I simply relied on sources and their uses of language and they gave me the impression that the man was no longer alive. I learned later only from this exchange with User:Aachtert what the nature of his concern was; until then I tried to remove anything possibly questionable about a living person from the account of The MLA Style Manual; one must keep in mind that, believing that the person was no longer alive based on the way the sources cited subsequent editions of the Style Manual and the Research Guide, I did not have any sense that WP:BLP applied to that person. When I learned differently, I acted accordingly and in good faith. I am certain that the full record (not just one "diffs" link but the full exchange as it developed bears out my good faith editing. --NYScholar (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

People had assumed that because a new editor took over the MLA publications and the first editor was no longer being credited as being involved in them, that he had died. Usually, the previous work of the editor of a first ed. receives named credit in a second ed., etc. This attempt at Sarah to make more of this matter than occurred is very insulting. It was an inadvertent error and corrected immediately. However, the manner in which it was brought to my attention by Sarah seemed very peculiar to me, and I had never seen any such message from any administrator or anyone else about being asked to engage in e-mail correspondence with a stranger, who there is no way I would have of knowing the authenticity of. I have seen attempts to sleuth out the real identities of Wikipedia editors, and I am cautious of being conned into using my real-name based e-mail accounts in any such correspondence, due to fear of subsequent spam, harassment, identity theft and/or other unpleasant grievous situations. If someone wants to know whether or not his brother is alive or dead, one would expect that person to be able to contact another relative to find out, or simply to call his brother. In e-mail there is no way to know for sure whether the sender is legitimate. I could not help the person anyway, because I could find no other information about the person in question (Walter S. Achtert, who is mostly credited online and in my MLA publications simply as an editor, with no further accessible biographical information. It is not my job to do "original research" in Wikipedia; in fact, it is prohibited. --NYScholar (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the very brief reply that I got from Sarah at the time (see Archive 16, Diffs. already posted), I had no idea (until today) that she was making such a huge matter out of this and also am disturbed to learn that as a result of my good faith replies to User:Aachtert--Also all in Archive 16 section called "Fact checking"--she has been "watching" me for months and just jumped on this opportunity to dredge this up; to me that is not in keeping with WP:CIVIL and it is entirely unfair. I did my best to deal with the situation (given the cryptic nature of her "E-mail?" post, the fact that I will not use e-mail in Wikipedia, and the confusion about what User:Aachtert was actually referring to (my talk page 16 and not the article or the talk page of the article). The idea that someone is using Wikipedia to learn information about his or her own family member and has no other way of learning information about that person is highly unusual, and, in my view, seemed suspicious. I responded the best way that I could do under those very odd circumstances. --NYScholar (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop archiving this page while people are still posting to this discussion. Your behaviour is disruptive, please stop it now. Sarah 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate that you have seen my replies of 01:34 [and 04:38] [and related additions-links--just above your "Please stop archiving" req.], 10 February 2008 (UTC); after you do so or post here again, I will know that you read it, I will consider this discussion closed, and I will archive this page, as is my prerogative, according to WP:TPG and Wikipedia:User talk. I am following the policies and guidelines. But I do not want to discuss this any further. Please agree to end this discussion. I do not want to participate in it anymore. For what I said before about it, you need to review my talk page archive already linked and Talk:The MLA Style Manual and related linked articles to it. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [FYI:The direct link to my respectful and intentionally-useful ref. to the discussion with the family member cited (after having already deleted material after guessing what the problem might be) is in Talk:The MLA Style Manual#The MLA Style Manual. (Point of information: I am a "life member" of the MLA because I have been a member of that organization for over forty years, as both a university and college professor and an academic scholar in its disciplines.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

Why ask me to acknowledge when I had read it if you were going to delete the whole thread after you posted the comment and before I had a chance to even read it anyway?! See, this is exactly the problem. May I suggest that you leave active threads on this page for 24 hours before archiving/deleting them. It seems rather deliberate and unfair that you write responses then archive them straight away, effectively sending a clear message that the conversation is over when you've had your say. This is not a "collegial" way to operate a talk page for a collaborative project. You keep citing the talk page guidelines at us, and while it is correct that we allow users latitude in their userspace, if their behaviour in their userspace is disrupting the project, we certainly have the right to step in and enforce disruption policies. I find the manner in which you are conducting this page highly disruptive. You quickly shut down good faith editors who come to discuss an issue with you, telling them to stop posting here because you're too busy in "real life", while you continue to make literally hundreds of edits, you then move their message to your archive where you declare they are not to edit, that if they wish to respond to something in the archive, they should respond on your talk page, yet, when they do this, you become agitated, accusing them of upsetting you, and of taking up too much of your time. This is a really disruptive way of managing this page and if you really are operating in good faith and are genuinely here to collaborate with other people, I hope you consider waiting a day or two before archiving their posts.

Unfortunately, you have made so many false and incorrect statements here in this section and the ones below and so I am forced to be here at 4:00am, restoring the thread and wasting my time responding to your countless false claims.

You write above: "My practice in using e-mail..."

Look, I really don't care about your email practices. And, as I've already said, I don't care if you don't wish to accept any mail from the foundation or from anyone else, but there were ways of handling this case that would have minimised both embarrassment for yourself and the utterly unnecessary pain and suffering for the family. And telling Mr Achtert: "This is an unnecessary continuation of previously-changed material" was just damn rude. (Obviously, it wasn't "unnecessary" to him) While you eventually struck that sentence after the fact and after he had stopped posting here, that's exactly what Mr Archtert saw when he returned and replied to you. Beyond the actual "mistake", the way you managed it, even archiving the discussion just a couple of hours later was inconsiderate and unnecessarily confusing and rude for someone who was obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I've seen that this style of yours is causing other problems with other editors and so I felt it appropriate to raise my concerns here.

You write: "I did not know Sarah (and still do not know her) personally; I did not know for certain that the person claiming to be "a family member" of Walter S. Achtert was indeed a family member; there was no way for me to verify that, and, since I also did not and do not know Sarah, her posting this request in my talk page did not give me any confidence in its verifiability."

Why you'd think someone would make up Mr Achtert's story if not true is utterly beyond me but whatever. That you even question their sincerity and genuineness is bewildering to me and seems rooted in a profound inability to assume good faith of others around you. As for me and my "verifiability", well, if you had simply raised that concern at the time, if it really was a concern to you, it would have been quickly settled. Anyone from Cary Bass (the foundation's volunteer coordinator) through to Jimmy Wales himself could have verified whatever you thought you needed to know about me and/or the email. It seems rather convenient to raise this concern after the event when you didn't say a word at the time, and it seems that you're using it to justify or excuse your treatment of Mr Achtert.

You write: "I really do not think that you are familiar with the fact that the comment that he referred to was only in my user talk space and that I deleted it immediately after guessing what the problem was (using ellipsis dots)"

This is not true. The comment was only deleted after he came back a second time (after you claimed you'd removed it) and told you that it was still posted in User:NYScholar/Archive_16#MLA_Style_Manual. And your response to that was? Some rambling commentary about deleting content from archives. Further, you don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter where this comment was posted. You might think it was "only" in an archive, but that is meaningless to a non-Wikipedian. All he knew was that when he did a google search of his brother's name, your comment authoritatively declaring his brother was deceased came up in the results. That you would even use the word "only" in reference to the location of that information shows that you still don't "get it".

"the manner in which it was brought to my attention by Sarah seemed very peculiar to me, and I had never seen any such message from any administrator or anyone else about being asked to engage in e-mail correspondence with a stranger, who there is no way I would have of knowing the authenticity of. "

I don't know what you think is so "peculiar" but email is frequently used on Wikipedia, that is why we have an "email this user" function. And there is nothing whatsoever peculiar in explaining to an editor that the foundation had received an email from the immediate family of a man the editor had just been writing about, who wished to ask the editor about the material they had posted. And then asking if the editor would be willing to accept such an email. I don't know what you're trying to suggest with your comments there but it really is quite offensive.

"I've already explained that to you months ago now and even reiterated the explanation"

What are you talking about? You never explained anything to me "months ago". The entirety of our communication was this. We never had a proper discussion of this matter. In fact, I returned here to add something to that thread but it had already been archived. So I considered that you weren't interested and didn't care, so I went away and spent hours on the computer searching through Factiva, various other newspaper archives and other academic databases, searching for any information on his death so that I could at least go back and tell the family something. You complain that I don't understand how it was for you, well, I don't think you understand how much unnecessary work I had to do as a result of this false information, in addition to the family's isues.

"I think that you should have made the correction yourself quietly and explained the matter in general terms. It was also not my responsibility to do "original research" for that man's family member, from whom he was apparently estranged"

What on earth are you yammering about? What "correction" should I have made myself?? Are you suggesting I should have corrected your false information regarding the man's "death"? Well, it's quite apparent that if I had, you would have had a tantrum over someone editing your archive pages. But regardless of that, I did not know the information was false! The family did not know the information was false. As Mr Achtert explained to you himself, his brother had become very reclusive and that it was therefore possible that he had missed hearing of his death. It was only when you refused their request that I went and did extensive research myself because I felt terrible for their obvious distress but I was unable to confirm his death or that he was alive. I did not know that the information had been confirmed false until I read it here on your talk page in Mr Achtert's post. Honestly, your claims and comments are extraordinarily bizarre.

"Instead of continuing to make these absolutely-insulting claims, you need to consult the full record. I am not responsible for errors in sources"

I am fully aware of the "full record" having investigated in full at the time. You posted information about a living man that turned out to be false and distressing to his immediate family. You claimed that the false information was in the source material yet were unable to provide or even cite the source, which is a violation of WP:BLP. The family contacted the foundation asking that we assist putting them in contact you because at that point they still believed the possibility you knew what you were talking about. When approached, you declined in favour of talk page communication (as is your right) forcing said family to come to your page where they were told it was an "unnecessary conversation" and then the thread was quickly archived. Yep, it's all pretty straight forward.

"I am only responsible for correcting those that I learn of. I did so immediately (in my talk page). "

Except you didn't correct them all and Mr Achtert had to come back and point out another place where it was still visible. And your response was to prattle about whether you could delete content from archives.

"At the time, given the message that you left, there would have been no way for me to know what you were talking about, as you had been so cryptic"

Yes, I had been cryptic because I was trying not to embarrass you. If you had wanted to know what I was talking about, all you had to do was ask, but instead you archived the section a couple of hours later.

"To drag it up again publicly is to a disservice to the person who initially requested privacy."

Who requested privacy? The man in question was forced to come to this page to discuss this matter with you publicly. He had to use his real name and to post his brother's name and details of his career etc on this page which you have left visible in your archive. I'm not sure what "privacy" you're concerned about but I think you're a bit too late now

"The idea that someone is using Wikipedia to learn information about his or her own family member and has no other way of learning information about that person is highly unusual, and, in my view, seemed suspicious"

No one said he was using Wikipedia to learn information about his family members or that he had no other way of finding out such information. He googled his brother's name and your post showed up. People frequently google family member's names. Hell, they even often google their own names. Your statement is just ridiculous and I'm rather sick of all your false statements and bizarre assumptions and suggestions and claims. That very claim is highly offensive and I think you should remember that BLP applies to all pages, including userspace. Furthermore, your suggestion that he was unable to find out about his brother is provably false given he came here and told you that you didn't know what you were talking because his brother was not, in fact, dead, as you had claimed. I think that in itself proves the utter rubbish you are posting and you really do need to stop because it's a violation of BLP.

"It is not my job to do "original research" in Wikipedia; in fact, it is prohibited."

Who asked you to do OR? All you were asked for was to provide the source of the information you already posted about a living person in violation of BLP. Further, OR applies to articles and that's it, it doesn't prohibit you from showing some basic compassion for a fellow human being who was caused considerable distress directly by your actions and behaviour.

"Seldom does one encounter a family member who has been in such infrequent contact with a relative [brother, it was revealed later] that he or she does not know whether or not the person is alive or dead. I guessed at the problem without being in contact via e-mail, and I guessed correctly and made the changes to the article and talk page without even being asked to do so."

What rot. Again. I'm not going to go over the lies of your claims about other people's relationships. It's just so offensive to be making these comments about living people. You're blatantly violating BLP and I'm warning you once and for all that if you continue making these comments and suggestions about living people you will blocked under the BLP policy. Also, you most certainly did not guess correctly and make the appropriate changes. You only fixed the problem when Mr Achtert returned after you'd unbelievably told him that "this discussion is unnecessary" to ask you again to remove the comment from the archive. Honestly, your comments are leaving me utterly gobsmacked.

Your claims above about Moondye

"Then the user came to my talk page asked me to do him/her a "favour," involving changing the layout of my talk page, which I spent a half hour or so doing, after which I thanked the user on his/her own talk page."

The administrator's request was highly appropriate. Your talk page is provided to facilitate communication between other editors and yourself, not as an archival service. That long ream of text would be okay on your userpage or a subpage, but it was interfering with people's ability to use this page. Also, you keep quoting the userpage guideline, please be aware that guideline also says:

"The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption."

"The beginning of the focus on me instead of on the edit (violating WP:NPA: focus on the content not the contributor) began with the labeling of a subsequently-revised sentence as a "rant" and "fluff" etc.Diffs. and moved toward a further breach of WP:CIVIL with the user's focusing back on the same earlier version of the sentence and even linking to it "

Sorry, but not matter what you think of your own contributions, calling edits "fluff" and "a rant" are not in anyway at all a personal attack. It's simply his opinion of the edit, the "focus on content, not contributor" part: he was comment on the content, not the contributor. It's perfectly okay for him express his opinion about the quality of edits. If that's the evidence of his so-called personal attacks, well, I'm afraid that you owe the man an apology.

Please consider the possibility that people wouldn't bother commenting here if they didn't consider it necessary and that repeatedly responding to good faith editors' concerns with "This is an unnecessary discussion" is probably not conducive to a collaborative environment. Sarah 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disrupting my talk page

I have asked people to stop posting about these matters on my talk page; the posts are disrupting more than my talk page; they are disrupting my work schedule and my life. I am very tired and I want to rest. I recovered from a recent month-long illness early in January, and I have no desire to fall ill again because of what I am regarding as disruptive activity by others (not I) on my (yes, my) Wikipedia talk page. Please stop disrupting my talk page, my work schedule, and my life. Please demonstrate some compassion. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) [This whole exchange from top to bottom will be archived. (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]

For those who need such guidance, before posting anything on my current talk page, please see: WP:TPG and Wikipedia:User page (sec. on User talk pages), particularly Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings, and the other links at top of page, as well as my "N.B." sec. Thank you. (Updated. This will all be archived shortly.) ---NYScholar (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar, this page is provided for other users to communicate with you. The way you are currently conducting, telling good faith editors and administrators to buzz off and stop disturbing you is not acceptable. I think if you have 'real life' work you need to do and you find other editors on Wikipedia an annoying distraction, you really ought to stop logging onto the site until you've finished your work and have time to respond to people's questions and concerns. Frankly, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you're not prepared to respond to your fellow editors. Also, please consider using the 'preview' button and ensuring your post is complete and correct before posting it instead of making half-a-dozen minor edits to every post you make, catching people in multiple edit conflicts. Sarah 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[....] [I use "show preview" with every edit that I do, multiple times; sometimes I miss errors; see "tc" for typographical corrections; please do not post about this matter in my current talk page. I have already discussed the fact that I always use "show preview" in my archived talk pages several times. Other people posting these comments make even more errors than I do. I am not chiding them for not using "show preview."--NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

[The material that I posted below (see UTC time date stamp) has been somehow deleted from my current talk page. I issued a warning below not to delete my comments from my talk page. I don't know how this occurred. I did not delete it, at least not intentionally.]

[Please see Diffs. for how such deletions from my talk page may have occurred; administrators and others should not be deleting my responses and then claim that I am not responding or archiving prematurely. They should not be deleting such content from my talk page. I replied and the reply seems to have been deleted. I restored it below, as I had to do other comments that were deleted from this talk page by others without authorization. --NYScholar (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

When one edits in sections, the notes citations texts do not show up; "show preview" does not show them; many of my edits have been corrections to notes citations, and they have been done in stages when I have been in editing sections; I have had to return to the page in full article mode in show preview to see the results of the edits. That's just a Wikipedia glitch. Many people encounter that problem. It has nothing to do with "show preview" if one is in sections; one has to be in full article editing mode to see notes citations. Given the vast number of changes needed to the citation templates, editing that article has resulted in having to return from section to full many times. One does not always know how things will post in citations in "show preview" in sections. That leads to having to return multiple times. I have already said in the talk pages of articles that I do not like using citation templates; I have deferred to their use in that article, but it is hard to work with them (as many will attest); there are puncutation problems that often need correction: the problem with the citation templates as some people were creating them is already discussed fully in Talk:Heath Ledger. Please see that discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also a "good faith editor": WP:AGF. Everyone makes typographical errors; not everyone bothers to take the time to correct them. I do so in an attempt to have accuracy in articles in Wikipedia. [These comments by others placed on my talk page go beyond the pale.] (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[I will be archiving all of the above discussion after my "N.B." box shortly. --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Warning

I am following WP:POL re: talk pages. I can delete and/or archive comments after I read them. DO NOT DELETE MY OWN COMMENTS FROM THIS TALK PAGE. THAT IS VANDALISM. Please stop micromanaging my talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Block warning

If you continue archiving this page while administrators are still trying to converse with you about your behaviour, I will consider it ongoing disruption after being warned and protect this page/block you as appropriate. Please stop. Sarah 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

People are not supposed to be blocked for respectful requests that others stop talking about old matters already handled in the past and already archived on their own current talk page. I don't know why you will not let this go. I've read what you've said, I don't want to discuss it any further, I've made that clear (several times, to no avail), I want to move on (with my work and my life), and I want to archive these discussions. The exchange (above) and this reply to it) will continue to be accessible in archive 18, which is clearly identified. Please see the link to civility below and please read what I've already replied and follow the links given to the previous discussion of this very old matter. I archive discussions when I think they are over. I think that this discussion is over. I will be archiving this discussion tomorrow (Sunday, New York [ET]). That gives you plenty of time to read what I have responded. But I will have no further responses to make on this subject. I've covered it completely and have no more to say about it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[Sarah actually posted this block warning [about an hour (ed. NYS corr.)] after I posted my warning (to her and/or others) not to delete my comments from my user talk page; nevertheless, she and/or someone else has been refactoring my talk page, either purposely or accidentally deleting and losing my comments, which I have tried to restore, using editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] [I just discovered that I made a mistake here. I saw this "Block warning] two hours after I had posted my sec. "Warning". --NYScholar (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)]

Wikipedia policy governing removal of comments, warnings from user's own talk pages

For Wikipedia's own policy governing removal of warnings on talk pages (the preference is for archiving them; but they can be deleted as a sign that they have been read as well), please consult the direct link about WP:TPG: Removal of Comments: warnings:

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

--NYScholar (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

NYScholar, I told you, very clearly, that your management of this talk page was disruptive. I see in the history that you responded to me, then archived the discussion before I saw it, was reverted, archived it again, was reverted, etc. I wouldn't have even seen your response had Sarah not taken up this issue in my absensce. And so others have been dragged in, and we have a dispute that has wasted the time and emotional energy of numerous editors, not least yourself. This is the precisely the disruption I was talking about.

I have therefore blocked you for 24 hours, in the hope that this will prevent further disruption. I suggest you use some of that time to figure out a way of managing this talk page that is in line with community expectations. You might like to use the remaining time to meet some of the real-life priorities that you keep telling us are so pressing that you have time to edit Heath Ledger but not to respond to anyone about anything. Hesperian 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been responding on this current page and did not archive after the warning. --NYScholar (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [Here I am referring to Sarah's "block warning": See #Block warning above; I have archived nothing since then. --NYScholar (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Sarah refactored my talk page and lost some of your comments, as far as I can tell; I left them there. --NYScholar (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[Sarah moved material from my archive back to the current talk page and changed some of it or deleted or lost some of my comments in doing so, it appears to me, having checked the editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

I have looked at the edits where this occurred and it seems this was an accident, caused in part by your multiple waves of small edits. The edit conflict detector doesn't always work perfectly, I've seen this kind of problem in the same situation before. Orderinchaos 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moreover, I have not "reverted" or used "undo"; Sarah has gone into my archive page and taken material out of it and placed it back on my current page, creating errors in the course of doing so, cutting off some comments, omitting whole comments of mine, and that activity was not mine. I came here (briefly) to look at one thing, and got involved in trying to restore the cut-off and deleted comments and trying to put them back where they had originally been prior to the refactoring by Sarah. The archive page clearly says that it is not to be edited by others; all archived material could be read as it was (it was simply moved there; it was not hidden; my "N.B." clearly says look in the archives, and there is a clear archive box of 18 pages of archived pages.)
• For new discussions one is supposed to start a new section on a talk page, not go into an archived talk page and change it. Sarah's activities on my talk page and in my talk page archive are overstepping any administrative boundaries and she is engaging in administrative abuses of Wikipedia's own WP:TPG, which allow me to archive discussions and to remove both warnings and other comments from my own user talk page.
• Generally (except for the harassment by Pairadox of clearly-already answered and redundant and false charges that I do not use "show preview", which I do use), I archived comments and did not remove them. My prerogative is to end discussion when it has become as unfair as this has become and when I am clearly being ganged up on, despite my own attempts at editing in good faith. These people abuse WP:AGF and continue to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=I have fully responded to the requests for responses: see beg. of req. at Hesperian editDiffs.; it has taken me all day to do this. This block is unfair and based on others' deleting my comments from my talk page. See the editing history for Sarah's refactoring and deletions of my comments. I have returned to respond to your requests in detail, taking hours to do so, and the block is unwarranted. }} --NYScholar (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• See all my responses to your request in #Warning re: disruption sec. --NYScholar (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• How can you possibly state that I haven't been taking the time "to respond to anyone about anything"; even though I didn't feel I had the time, I did so; in between I did some minor edits for the most part and added some sources to Heath Ledger as a respite from this grief. I have fully responded to every question asked about (that made any sense to me), and more than that. I have provided links to "Diffs" in the cases of the main issues (from top of page): you have to read the responses (some of which were deleted by Sarah and that I later restored); the editing history will bear that out. As far as my archiving your commment, you gave me permission to archive your warning (which I did not need, since I am entitled by WP:TPG to archive comments on my own user talk page. They are all preserved in the archive. Since I have been responding to Sarah, she has not acknowledged the responses. I have stated (above) that I would wait until tomorrow to archive this discussion. I will do so as I stated. Also, I have no urge to edit any article in Wikipedia anyway, given the efforts made to respond to Sarah and you on this talk page. But you should lift the block anyway, because it is entirely unfair (this current talk page and its editing history (my edits, not Sarah's) bears that out. I have not archived anything here for many, many hours. I know because I've been typing during them. --NYScholar (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As already quoted from WP:TPG above:

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

--NYScholar (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Is it really that upsetting to leave threads for a day or two? You can always hide large finished discussions using {{hat}} and {{hab}} or you can get a bot to automatically archive everything after two days. So much moving things around really does make it extremely hard to follow the history to try to evaluate your request. --B (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I'll be leaving them. But I do archive completed discussions. Sarah moved my page around re-factoring it, removing my comments; I had to dig through the editing history to find some of them and to restore them; she took archived material and put it back into the current page, losing my comments in some cases in the process. Other users (including administrators) are not supposed to refactor another user's talk page. All the material that she wanted back on the current page was restored to it; I did not even (at any time) archive Hesperian's comment (which that person said I could archive): I had left it there; at one point Sarah cut part of it off in re-factoring; but that was her work, not mine. --NYScholar (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That user (Pairadox) is the one who has been continually harassing me on this talk page. See the editing history. Sarah placed her #Block warning" (Scroll up) after those two edits, and I archived nothing after I read that warning. I will be deleting Pairadox's comment; I have asked Pairadox to stop harassing me; and I can see now what is happening here. This is clearly a concerted effort to cause trouble and it is a violation of WP:CIVIL. It was Pairadox (not initially Moon[dyne]) to whom I was generally referring in complaining of harassment on my talk page. See the editing history. The user came over here to harass me as a result of editing warring in which s/he was engaging in Heath Ledger and nasty editing summaries placed there, along with those by Moon.... Have these people nothing better to do? --NYScholar (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the link to Sarah's block warning: I archived nothing after that warning. However, she changed my comments by adding her block warning above my earlier posted comment--as a part of my section on "Warning" and deleted some of my comments throughout the page; I added my own heading to clarify where my comment was [it was posted before hers: see date time stamp]; she deleted some of my comments; I restored them. (That is the opposite of archiving.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [clarifications. The fact that Sarah has disclosed that she has left me on her "watchlist" since this Achtert matter is extremely disturbing, since her reply to me was only 2 lines long and I had no idea that the matter was not ended. I have documented the whole thing above and it is also in archive 16 and also accessible in part via Talk:The MLA Style Manual. Eventually, I will be archiving this entire discussion. It should be over, but because of this block, it has been even further extended. --05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[....]

[Struck out Pairadox's irrelevant remark [have now deleted it due to that user's reverting my strike-out [Ed. (NYS) corr: "objecting to my strike-out"; I feared that he was going to revert it], which had been an attempt to leave it visible: one can now can find it in editing history]; it is just an attempt to upset me further; those edits predate the "block warning" and they were clearcut archiving of discussions that I thought were over. They remained fully accessible in my talk page archives. The only remarks that I have actually been deleting are Pairadox's redundant requests for me to use "show preview" even after I said that I use "show preview" and also after considerable previous discussion of my use of it in my own talk archives, where I respond in the same way. I work very, very quickly (type very fast) and I am able to make changes, use show preview, and post more quickly than people who are slower. --NYScholar (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Please stop misrepresenting my actions. I did not revert anything; I left an additional comment informing you that striking out my comments is against talk page guidelines. Pairadox (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[See above. Sorry. Faux pas there. But I did fear that you intended to revert it and would do so. A strike-out leaves the material legible; I did not delete it initially, though I wanted to delete it. Now I have deleted it. I read it first. It was inaccurate; the links given were to edits that occurred prior to the "Block warning." It is customary in Wikipedia to receive a warning before being blocked that enables one to assess the situation accordingly; after the block warning I did not archive anything on this talk page until my account was unblocked with the stipulation that I was not violating user talk-page archive policy/guidelines. After saying that I would be archiving on Sunday, and getting no response for the entire night/early morning from Sarah, I took that as a signal that I could archive what had become a very long page; now even longer since my archiving was reverted by Sarah. I still see no reason why people cannot just continue a discussion on a new page with new headings referring to the earlier archived discussion (perhaps w/ a link to archived sec.). It happens all the time in article talk pages; e.g., Talk:Heath Ledger, which others wanted edited and archived, some might still say prematurely. --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)]

See Wikipedia policy on allowing users to delete comments from their talk pages'; I will not tolerate this harassment by Pairadox. Pairadox (not I) should be blocked for continually doing this. The links posted do not refer to the "Block warning" issued long prior to the block; and I was blocked for "archiving" when I had actually stopped archiving upon reading the block warning by Sarah. Pairadox should stay out of this. It does not concern him/her. I deleted comments by him/her that claim that I do not use "show preview" when I do; s/he should concentrate on correcting his own typographical errors in articles and stop harassing me. Administrators can check editing histories themselves. They do not need Pairadox to post links to my edits for them. Two days ago I asked him/her to stop posting these redundant and useless comments on my talk page. "Physician, heal thyself." --NYScholar (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I further suggest that these other users (like Pairadox) stop "ganging up on" (harassing) me. I am sure that the blocking and unblocking administrators can deal with these matters on their own. (Now that I have fully responded to Sarah, it is interesting that she has had no responses to the comments. I thought she was insisting on continuing the discussion, yet, I did so, and she never came back. To me that would mean a discussion was "over" (had ended). How long is one to leave comments on a talk page for discussion? It's been a whole day by now. I encounter talk pages of administrators who archive every few hours, even every hour; at least one administrator archives all comments immediately and the entire current talk page consists of quotations and images (at least it did the last time I checked). I had no idea even how to find her archive. My archive box is prominently displayed and clearly referred too and all archived comments (except for those moved by Sarah) are in those archive pages, with bracketed notes making them easy to follow. How one archives one's talk page is entirely up to one's discretion according to WP:TPG and many people don't even archive, they just delete. At least, I archive. --NYScholar (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request review

Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The warning process appeared to have been appropriately exhausted. The user has been disruptive in one way, then became disruptive in a different way following warnings, and launched into a series of unfounded personal attacks on a range of people (ironically, such an attack even exists within the user's unblock template - not the best way for getting neutral observers onside). Such behaviour, per WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is completely unacceptable and I support this block. Orderinchaos 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The "warning process" referred to is the "block warning" and as soon as I saw it I complied. I really don't see that you are all referring to the same "warning." As far as archiving one's own talk page: I do so when I have exhausted any possibility of continuing a discussion with a person generally; I just don't want to participate in talking with Sarah anymore about something that was settled months ago and that she is currently misrepresenting due to not have reviewed the full record and just relying on memory: see archive 16 and Talk:The MLA Style Manual#The MLA Style Manual and my already-extensive commments to her (which she has made no responses to since I made that effort). Something very wrong is happening here. --NYScholar (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been attempting to respond to the request for responses to comments. To call that "disruptive" is not only unfair but given the demand that I do so (respond to comments), it completely disregards what I was asked to do. I have been defending myself against harassment of comments deleted from my talk page due to the harassment: see above. The harassing comments were all violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and, in my view, WP:NPA; my pointing out that I have been harrassed is not a personal attack; it is a complaint in defense of myself. There were two hours that passed between the posting of a "block warning" for archiving material that the administrator Sarah said I had not responded to, and my taking all that time (and more to respond). Instead of anyone recognizing that I had complied, Hesperian came back (two hours later) and, not recognizing that it was actually Sarah who had deleted my replies to his (and her request) in copying and paste archived material from my talk page, blamed me for not responding and for archiving. Actually, I stopped archiving as soon as I saw Sarah's #Block warning; that is borne out both by the time date stamps on my comments and by the editing history. In mentioning Pairadox I was trying to note that I had to delete only that user's comments (due to my sense of being harrassed; they were a series of links to my edits claiming that I do not use "show preview" and I responded to that above in detail (part of my comment deleted by Sarah). I restored the comment after wondering what had happened to it and finding how it had happened in her editing history of my talk page archive and talk page. Any administrator can check these things. If anyone has been "disrupting" my talk page, it has actually other people, not me.

Re: Pairadox: I simply had deleted irrelevant and harassing remarks by Pairadox (after reading and also responding to them) and also archived everything else after I was finished discussing those things. I kept saying I don't want to take more time to do this, and people have been pushing me into responding further. That is both unfair and even, I think, mean-spirited. If someone wants to be left alone to do other things, just be respectful enough to leave the person alone. The talk pages of articles are for discussing editing them. Not my talk page.

Moreover, my archive pages have the previous discussions; it's not going anywhere. If someone wants to continue something important (not just anything that they fancy), one can start a new subject. But if I have no interest in continuing the discussion and say so, one should respect that. It violates WP:CIVIL otherwise. No one should be forcing Wikipedian editors into discussing matters that occurred (in Sarah's case) months ago or in Moondyne's case were already responded to in view view adequately. I responded further when Hesperian demanded that I do. Sarah deleted my response (however). But I did respond, and I did so entirely courteously and respectfully. I have asked Pairadox to stop posting comments on my talk page because I find they have already been dealt with, directly, and s/he is just ignoring the answers. I should not have to keep pointing that out. Read the record; it's all here (now that I restored comments deleted by Sarah (however it happened). --NYScholar (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as Moondyne's asking a "favour": I complied, spending a half hour doing so; thanked the user, and then got no response for having done so, other than time-wasting comments on my talk page. See: User talk:Moondyne#Response. Some of the other users (administrators) are the ones who should be blocked from doing this to an editor. I suggest you look at Moondy[n]e's talk page, where I thanked the person and received no acknowlegment but more grief on my talk page. My compliance with a time-consuming request was generous in view of what I was doing then otherwise (working on my non-Wikipedia work). I stopped to comply and change my current talk page, user page, and to create a subuser page: that was my response (archived after I did it). What is at top is pure harassment as far as I'm concerned and totally unnecessary. Nevertheless, I responded as Hesperian demanded (I'm not even sure an administrator is allowed to demand a response from someone to such questions). No one is acknowledging that I complied with Hesperian's demands; instead of even noticing that I had done so (the material Sarah had deleted and that I had to restore from editing history), he (or she) blocked my account. --NYScholar (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[....] [Deleted my own ref. to getting name wrong when it wasn't wrong after all. (previously added, see below: approx. 08:50, 10 February 2008.] [Ed. update (NYS): I just finally found the typographical error to which I initially referred, however, and I have corrected it in brackets in the above para. --NYScholar (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]

After I respectfully and courteously asked Moondyne to stop posting these requests on my talk page because I didn't have time to deal with them further, Moondyne immediately posted more of the same on my talk page (scroll up; and see archive 18). To me that is disrespectful, uncivil, and amounts to harassment, even though s/he claims it is not. Is it respectful, civil, or kind? I think not. I'm going to bed; logging out. --NYScholar (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian says that s/he restored that message that I removed from my talk page (with justification) and moved to Moondyne's talk page, where the discussion had originated (my response above). That is where the trouble for me then began with Hesperian deciding that I had breached WP:CIVIL, when I think if anyone would look at what I was thanking Moondyne for (archive 18) and how I had complied with being asked to do a very time-consuming "favour", it was Moondyne who breached WP:CIVIL by not even acknowledging that I had done so and by ignoring my pleas to for him/her to desist in asking me to do time-consuming things that I did not want to do. --NYScholar (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I just realized that Hesperian is referring to yet another comment that Moondyne posted on my talk page after I explained that I wished the person would not do so; it is at top of this current talk page, where Hesperian put it back. I did not want to deal with that matter; I had dealt with it already on the talk page of the article; it did not belong discussed in my talk page at all. See Talk:Heath Ledger for the whole development. I fully responded to Moondyne in detail about many things; the harassment was initially referring to another user (see above discussion of that), but then Moondyne started copying and pasting my comments from where I posted them to my talk page, which I explicitly requested not be done; Moondyne could have responded on his/her own talk page. I moved the material there accordingly. That kind of behavior is what I consider "harassment": when someone says "please don't ..." and another person does exactly what one has been requested not to do, it is not respectful. The archiving is different; it is permitted by WP:TPG, it is transparent, and it is wholly above board. Anyone can easily access archived talk pages from this page. When the pages get too long, I also archive them. This one will be archived as soon as the block is lifted and/or Sunday night (ET), whichever comes first. --NYScholar (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Orderinchaos above, I am not addressing any issues of alleged incivility, etc., because this is not what NYScholar was blocked for, as far as I can tell. Sandstein (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --NYScholar (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the block still has not been taken off my account. Please doublecheck and fix this problem. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[The autoblock log says that there is no autoblock on the IP address. --NYScholar (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

ATTN: Sandstein or other helpful administrator:

Ah. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"attempting to archive/clean up this page now that this is resolved"

[Note: the word "this" in the heading refers to the unwarranted block of my account, which was unblocked by Sandstein. After he indicated that I could archive my talk page as I want to do, I did so. None of the material was altered, and it all remains as it was originally posted in Archive 18. Later, Sarah seems to have copied and pasted the archived material back onto this current talk page, resulting in reverting my later changes to my "N.B." box above, which I have since restored. See my comments below. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

Ugh, no, this is absolutely not resolved. I'm restoring this so that I can respond to your utterly unacceptable false statements. Stay tuned. Thank you. Sarah 14:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The above sections are so utterly jammed with incorrect information, accusations of bad faith, and downright false claims that I don't even know where to begin but I'm not having you archive such false allegations and claims about me without comment. This is just outrageous. Starting with the following:

"Sarah has gone into my archive page and taken material out of it and placed it back on my current page, "

Wrong. I haven't touched your archive pages at all. I simply restored the last version of this page before you deleted the threads that we were still trying to post responses to. Please carefully inspect my contributions and your archive history and you will see that you're once again making false accusations in a hit-and-run style: that is, you make false accusations and then archive quickly before your victim has an opportunity to respond, forcing them to leave it unchallenged in your archive so it looks to anyone not aware of the truth that it's true, or your victim restores the thread and responds, only to be hammered with more false accusations and lies. Please examine those links very closely and show me where I have made a single edit to your archive page. Please show me the justification for your accusation that I have "taken material out of [your archive]". I demand that you immediately retract these utterly bogus lies and accusations.

"The archive page clearly says that it is not to be edited by others"

Right. And that's exactly the problem. You move active threads to your archive. People conveniently cannot reply where you've put their posts, so they have to follow the instructions on the archive page ("If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page"), so they restore the discussion here to your talk page but then you carry on and object and make even more false accusations and comments which in turn keeps people posting, having to defend themselves against your false claims. This is just ridiculous. This page is provided for other editors to communicate with you. You don't own it, the community owns it and we're allowed to use it when we need to address concerns with you. If you aren't prepared to communicate with other editors and don't want people leaving messages here then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all.

"Sarah moved material from my archive back to the current talk page and changed some of it or deleted or lost some of my comments in doing so, it appears to me, having checked the editing history." and "Sarah has gone into my archive page and taken material out of it and placed it back on my current page, creating errors in the course of doing so, cutting off some comments, omitting whole comments of mine, and that activity was not mine." and I...got involved in trying to restore the cut-off and deleted comments and trying to put them back where they had originally been prior to the refactoring by Sarah." and " Sarah moved my page around re-factoring it, removing my comments;" and "at one point Sarah cut part of it off in re-factoring; but that was her work, not mine."

Utterly false accusations. Again, I have not touched your archive. I did not refactor the page. I did not move anything or delete anything. As I noted clearly in my edit summary, I restored the last version of the page before you deleted an in progress conversation and moved it to a place where we cannot respond: "restore this in progress conversation with 3 administrators" If a comment was lost in restoration of the thread you deleted knowing full well that it was still active, then repost the comment, whatever, but these blatant lies are utterly unacceptable.

"For new discussions one is supposed to start a new section on a talk page, not go into an archived talk page and change it. Sarah's activities on my talk page and in my talk page archive are overstepping any administrative boundaries and she is engaging in administrative abuses of Wikipedia's own WP:TPG, which allow me to archive discussions and to remove both warnings and other comments from my own user talk page."

Again utterly, provably false accusations. I have not touched your archives and I suggest you retract the absurd accusations you have made against both myself and Moondyne. The are absolutely unacceptable. Dealing with disruptive editors (which you plainly are) is not an overstep of my administrative duties. Furthermore, your allegation that I have engaged in "administrative abuses" is an outrageous personal attack and I demand you immediately retract it and all these false accusations and attacks. I have not used administrative rights on this page whatsoever and so your claim of "administrative abuse" is utterly bogus. If you do not retract all of your personal attacks and false accusations, I will immediately seek a block of your account for violations of the WP:CIVIL, NPA policies and the WP:DISRUPT guideline.

The userpage guideline that allows people latitude with their userspace is not a policy, it's a guideline and it's very clear that userspace is not to be used disruptively. Furthermore, the userpage guideline does not trump the disruption guideline, and the CIVIL and NPA policies. I strongly suggest that you retract every single false claim and accusation that you have made about myself and Moondyne and anyone else you have told bogus stories about here. I'm not going to tolerate anymore of this rubbish. Sarah 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now that I have fully responded to Sarah, it is interesting that she has had no responses to the comments. I thought she was insisting on continuing the discussion, yet, I did so, and she never came back."

I just cannot believe how utterly rude and offensive you are. I hadn't responded to you because I was at a Wikimedia meeting which (as if it's any of your damn business) was being held an hour and a half's drive from where I live. Therefore I spent three hours in the car in addition to time at the meetup, in addition to having a life and going to bed. I'm sorry you don't understand that other people have lives and families and don't sit online waiting for you to make a comment so we can immediately reply. But if you'd bothered to check my contributions, you might have realised that I hadn't responded because I wasn't even online. These accusations, suggestions, implications and offensive comments from you are too much and I don't see why any of us should have to put up with this utter crap. If you continue with this you are going to be blocked. And there's no "might" or "may be" about it. You will be blocked. Sarah 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the archive template:

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is no need to keep going into my archive, block copying the material there and moving it to the current talk page from which it was archived. The material remains in the archive, and the directions are "If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page"; "Do not edit the contents of this page." Going into to "edit this page" mode in my archive and copying and pasting the material back onto my talk page (in the interim losing comments that I posted in the meantime on the current page, requiring me to restore them [as I spent hours doing last night] is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. What you are doing is a violation of the template. I refer to that as an "abuse" of administrative authority (such as it is): see WP:ANOT for more perspective.

Calling my responses that I wrote in good faith (taking my entire night and early morning to do so) "rot" and "rubbish" and "crap" is not only disrespectful; it is a breach of WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL. I do not want to engage in further discussion with you. I have already responded appropriately, courteously, and to the best of my knowledge and experience. I have been ill, and I don't want to get ill again. You have ignored my clear expressions of my wishes. Any further discussion on the matter discussed fully already and archived in archive page 16 is, from my perspective, a waste of my time and yours. I dealt with the matter to the best of my ability then, and there is nothing further to do about it now. I linked to the full discussion (not just part of it). --NYScholar (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will archive this page (because it is so long) on Monday. (I lost earlier responses that I made due to "editing conflicts". Apparently, Sarah was editing at the same time. Rather than to try to recompose them, which I don't have time to do, I'm leaving this as my reply. There are many inaccuracies in Sarah's claims; the editing history, the archived talk pages, the talk page of the articles in question, and my comments will all bear out my good faith attempt to respond to reasonable comments made on my talk page and on the talk pages of articles. (I used "show preview" in writing this comment; any typographical errors that remain are inadvertent and I ask for them to be ignored; otherwise I will return to correct them after this posts if I do not run into another "editing conflict"). --NYScholar (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling my comment that the copying and reposting of my archived talk page (18) led to losing some of my comments (which were responses to earlier requests for responses) "blatant lies" is also a breach of WP:CIVIL and the entire response is now couched in terms that appear to attack my veracity, my good faith, and my integrity. Another editor determined that the comments were indeed lost because "editing conflict" may not function sensitively enough as a feature in Wikipedia. I used [the] "editing history" to repost them by copying from editing history and returning them to where I had originally posted them; that took a lot of time and it was done in good faith. I explained that the process of copying and pasting from my archive by Sarah had led to the discrepancies, and that is true. It may have been unintentional, but it led to my comments of response being deleted and confusion by Hesperian (whose comment at one point had been cut off it seemed to me, not by me) and who blocked me. It too[k] many, many hours for me to explain the problems last night and early this morning. Since Sarah had issued a "#Block warning" (which I responded to by then not archiving anything for the entire night and early morning prior to the lifting of the block by Sandstein), I thought that she was following this matter and had simply chosen not to respond. Sandstein lifted the block and I archived the discussion, knowing that one can simply "revive" an "old discussion" or "start a new one" easily enough by adding a new section to a current talk page. That is how this should have been managed; instead, once again, Sarah copied and pasted from my archive page. I cannot take the time now to reply any further. I've responded to the best of my ability and, as I've said, cannot afford to fall ill again as a result. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It now appears to me that my previous editing of my own "N.B." box was reverted (I haven't yet looked at the editing history diffs.): I'm trying to restore the changes that I had made to it as one of my final edits before I went to bed at around 5:00 a.m. ET. I may have to do this in stages. (I don't know yet how the material from my archive returned to the current talk page today, but however it was done resulted in losing my edits to the "N.B." box.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to Diffs. relating to the changes not by made by me: there are "[17] intermediate edits" that I haven't yet been able to access (if I can at all), and I don't want to take the time to examine each one of them. But Here's the starting point of the change in the "N.B." box after I went to bed and after I was not logged onto Wikipedia. I've restored my most recent version of the "N.B." box. To all visitors to this page: please read it. I have been ill, and I'm going to rest. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [added earlier diffs link too.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [Subsequently, after finding some issues in Talk:Heath Ledger that needed reply, corrected the number 13 to 15 (checked diffs. and saw it says 15 not 13; 13 was what I remembered having seen there earlier). --NYScholar (talk)] [For some reason, that number of intermediate edits has changed again from 13 to 15 to 17, last time I accessed those "Diffs." linked just above. I don't know why. I've updated it to 17, but will not be updating it again. --NYScholar (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]

For the umpteenth time, therein lies your problem: Your bizarre archiving and micro-editing practices confuses yourself - how on earth can anyone else be expected to collaborate with you? The reality is that they cannot while you behave this way. For this reason you are disruptive. —Moondyne 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, I have not been "rude"; I think that, if anything, I have been amazingly courteous in view of the verbal abuse that I have encountered above. I am logging out and will not participate in discussing this matter any further. --NYScholar (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have disputes...

... you may want to ask for help from non-involved editors or seek dispute resolution, rather than escalate by archiving discussions. People that cannot express, they will tend to escalate, and that is not good to anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks, Jossi. Unfortunately, given my experience with "dispute resolution" in the past (which was resolved in my favor), I know that I myself have neither the time nor the inclination to become personally involved in it. I have three major projects about to go to press, and a 105-page manuscript to read, proofread, and correct now (from this comment on). I cannot participate. I just added a clarifying bracketed comment above, with links. I leave this matter for others to sort out. But using this occasion as a means of piling on additional accusation after accusation does only Wikipedia a disservice. As far as I am concerned, the accusations are false, unwarranted, uncivil, and evidence of unprofessionalism. See the link to "Wikipedia copyright-related issues" at top or from my user page for sources containing the perspectives of other academics on Wikipedia. Thank you. [I have not archived this discussion yet. If it ever ends (and please let me know when it does end, as apparently I myself am not being "allowed" to determine that), it will be archived appropriately. I would greatly appreciate an administrator who is not currently involved cueing me as to when this page can be archived. Usually, pages of length greater than 100KB are archived. This is quite long. If it were archived, it could still be referred to; that is why I archive discussions; so that they can be referred to. Just let me know. I don't know if/when I would see that, but it would be nice to know what the policy is on when someone can archive his or her own current talk page. (I have to fix format of page later.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my template says that I am "busy" not that I am no longer active on Wikipedia [or in some people's erroneous phrase, saying that I am on a "Wikibreak"; I've never used that term before or the template for that in Wikipedia]. People are claiming otherwise in posts that they are posting in other places in Wikipedia. Please actually consult this page and the editing history. The template has been "busy" because I am always "busy." I work all the time, much harder than many people, and I get almost no rest, take no vacations (not since 1987), and am enormously productive outside of Wikipedia. No one should be making (false) assumptions about how and when I spend my time. There are many hours when I am not here and I am doing other things. I also multi-task: do more than one task at a time. I took my time to work on citations on many articles over the years, as well as texts of articles, and I rarely find any appreciation at all for any of that work. One does sense that it is a waste of time, partly due to lack of appreciation, partly because of this constant internal Wikipedia bickering about things like archiving a talk page, and partly because one does not actually know any or most of the people one is "collaborating with", some of whom are anon. IP vandals. One can spend an enormous amount of time working on articles, only to have them vandalized. I think that problem (Wikipedia:Vandalism) is far greater than my archiving my talk page sooner than some people would have liked. And, also, I have not "deleted" the comments (except for a few by Pairadox recently or earlier personal attacks); the actual [full] "discussions" are archived (in 18 pages of archives); any deletions are accessible in the editing history. I have edited here since 2005; examine the contributions and the work done as well as these talk-page disputes. Please also visit my user page and my userboxes subpage as well. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC) --added info. --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the completely disrespectul, condescending, and wholly unwarranted tone and language used by Sarah and others (Moondyne, Pairadox, others posting elsewhere) completely in violation of both WP:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL; their comments about me both here and (I have seen also) on talk pages of other users and in administrative discussions are abusive, unwarranted, and meanspirited. I object to their tactics to block me further for defending myself against such attacks. All of this is completely contrary to WP:NPA, which is what I have been protesting all along. People are now attacking my honesty, my integrity, my good faith, my sincerity, my value, and just about every other aspect they can think of. It is becoming the kind of "free-for-all" that I objected to in a past dispute resolution, and in which I have no desire to participate again. What they have now engaged in (read the whole page and see archive 18 for the contexts if needed) is really an embarrassment not to me but an embarrassment and a possible threat to the integrity of Wikipedia. They are beginning to engage in Defamation of my work and my character: Keep in mind: I am a living person too; I have a real life identity, a real life profession, and a real life reputation in the academic scholarly community. I have participated in the so-called Wikipedia:Community of "collaborators" since June 2005 (approx. 3 1/2 years); I have participated in the academic scholarly community for over 40 years, and one of my specialties is "collaborative criticism" and scholarly "collaboration." critical work. So I do know quite a bit more about the nature and benefits of "collaboration" and how it is supposed to work than the outrageous comments about me now being posted throughout Wikipedia talk space are attempting to state and to imply. Again: I refer all of those engaging in this behavior to WP:NPA. It applies to talk space and user space and article space in Wikipedia: it applies to project pages, project page discussions; it applies to all Wikipedia space. Moreover, WP:BLP applies to me: I am a living person, I have a reputation, and these comments are maligning me and my reputation. --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If people are going to post links to edits taken out of context, and then people who have not read archive 16, archive 18, and this current talk page (which now contains not only material that I had archived but material that Sarah "restored" that I had archived through reverting my archiving, copying portions of it using italics for quotations of my archived material (taken out of context), and make claims based on this partial record, they are engaging in entirely-fallacious practices: see, e.g, Diffs., where I did explain my reasons for stating that I perceived other editors--"Moondyne" (and others)--to be engaging in personal attacks in the way that they were linking to pejoratively-worded editing summaries of one (subsequently-revised) sentence (!): according to WP:NPA, one cannot consider a civil (in my case) statement that one feels that other editors are engaging in personal attacks against one to be in itself a "personal attack": Please re-read WP:NPA more carefully. And please actually read this current talk page, archive 16, User talk:Aachtert, and User talk:Moondyne#Response. What is happening in the WP:ANI is that people who have not read the evidence in this full talk page are basing their judgments on dredged-up out-of-context links people are providing and drawing unfounded conclusions from them. Those of you engaging in this kind of activity are violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct, engaging in all kinds of incivility toward me, and violating WP:NPA. You are trying to "punish" me retroactively for things that I have not done, despite the claims. The only dispute resolution I was involved in resulted in agreeing with my argument. At least some of the blocks in my block log were reversed very soon after they were made based on their being unwarranted: please actually look at the time date stamps of the blocks and unblocks. Some of them, in my view, were not warranted in the first place, and I have stated so in archived discussions of them. What many (most) of those posting in the WP:ANI are claiming or linking to as "evidence" is not that at all. Moreover, apparently, no one is actually reading my response to Hesperian (scroll way up); Sarah's editing of this current talk page, with all those italicized quotations taken out of context does not permit seeing my actual responses, made in the original sections of the talk page. The actual record of this talk page has become much harder to follow due to Sarah's editing of it after my archiving (after I was unblocked). As more than one administrator points out, I have not violated in any way WP:TPG. At the time that I have been archiving, I have been following the existing WP:POL in WP:TPG. If Wikipedia decides to change WP:TPG subsequent to my last archiving (which Sarah reverted, engaging in violations of both WP:TPG and WP:3RR, one cannot apply retroactive changes to the policy to my earlier archiving. I read the archiving procedure described in Wikipedia and followed the intructions for archiving. As far as SlimVirgin's comments go: there have been editing wars that I have encountered with her in the past; the record is in my archive. There are administrators who are engaged in editing articles who have been involved in editing wars, including those involved in Heath Ledger and Talk:Heath Ledger, whose perspectives on me are bound up with their own editing of articles. These are involved not uninvolved perspectives, and these are not "independent" reviewers. There are only a few independent administrators who have not been involved in editing disputes that I know of commenting in WP:ANI re: me. Their involvement in editing articles and in editing disputes must be taken into account when reading their statements.

• For the actual record, one has to read my responses to Hesperian's request (scroll way up) and actually look at the editing history, the subsequent edits after the links that people are posting; taking a few edits here and there out of context is both unfair and misleading. I should not be punished for administrators' disagreements about a 24 hour block that was placed (erroneously in my view still) for archiving my own user talk page before the #Block warning was issued by Sarah; 2 hours or more elapsed after that block; I did not archive this current talk page again until after Sandstein lifted my block, stating that my archiving was within WP:UP (I think he or she meant to link to (rather than WP:U--see the unblock. That unblock reason stated that I could archive as I was doing, and I archived the page according. Then Sarah reverted the archiving. Not only is one currently permitted to delete warnings from one's talk page (which I did not do by the way) but one is permitted to archive content left by other users on one's talk page. There is no policy in Wikipedia stated about when. That is not my fault. If Wikipedia wants to establish such a policy clearly in the future, of course I will follow it. Right now, my archiving practice follows WP:TPG and WP:UP. Sarah's repeated editing of my talk page (reverting my archiving) is not, however, observing current WP:TPG. Every time she has reverted my archiving, she has violated that policy. Like every other Wikipedia user, Wikipedia administrators are users of Wikipedia, and all Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to them equally as they do to me. WP:ANOT. It is really time to recognize that, if there are things that people don't like about how I archive my talk page, those things are not violations of WP:TPG as they apply to user talk pages/user space. If the policies change, as any other Wikipedia user, I would have to follow those new policies. Up to now, I have followed the policies that exist. Re: User talk:Aachtert: read it; look at the editing history; not only did I created the discussion page for that user (who intitially I did not even recognize to be related to the month-earlier message "E-mail?" from Sarah (no matter what she falsely claims), but it was I who directed Aachert to my talk page archive 16 explicitly. His comment in response was what led me to realize that by "Oct. 7" statement, we were referring to different posts; I had thought he was referring to my post in Talk:The MLA Style Manual#The MLA Style Manual (which I revised immediately upon reading the post in November from Sarah); he did not post until December, and at first, due to the "Aa" (double "a") in the red-linked name, I did not even make the connection; I also did not even when I first saw the red name "Aachtert" at first realize that he was the person whom Sarah had been writing to me about a month earlier (Nov.) pertaining to "Walter S. Achtert"; by the time he clarified which Oct. 7 post he was referring to, I had understood the connection. (I was away from home in late Nov.; see archive 16 for dates; between Oct. and Dec., two months had passed, and a lot had occurred in my real life, my work outside of Wikipedia, and in Wikipedia over those two months.) Sarah makes all kinds of false unfounded assumptions about what I was thinking and feeling and intending etc.; she has no idea what I was thinking and feeling and intending. I have told her more than once and she has accused me of engaging in "blatant lies"; her assumptions and interpretations of my intentions and actions based on what I intended are, nevertheless, false. They are her inventions based on her assumptions, which are false. The story that others are assuming is accurate in the WP:ANI is simply based on her speculations and assumptions which are false. Her and others' continuing to accuse me of lying ("crap", "rubbish", "blatant lies" in her words) violates WP:Etiquette, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and her editing practices of my current talk page have also violated WP:TPG.

I suggest you re-consider the entire WP:ANI in light of both this entire "Comment" (scroll up), this entire talk page (current version), and the archive 16 and 18, and look at the entire editing history of my entire 18 page archive, not just the few misleadingly-selected links to "diffs" that some people have been posting, which is taking these few edits out of the context of not only whole pages in Wikipedia, but also not taking into account the editing disputes and editing warring in which some of

These administrators have themselves been engaged in various articles (some over 1-2 years ago). For more recent comments, one may want to look at other articles which I have worked very hard to improve; see the link above to "Contributions". The article on Harold Pinter went through an extensive "good article" review, with which I fully cooperated; and it was enormously time-consuming (over a related period of time--I haven't double checked, but I recall working on the good article review for a very long time). See also the many editing controversies involving many editors, including SlimVirgin and other administrators who were engaged in the editing and editing conflicts in WP:BLP and Talk:BLP, which is a very controversial page in which SlimVirgin and I worked on. Any administrator who has been engaged in editing disputes and editing conflicts with another editor over particular articles is not a "neutral" observer of that editor's work. The involvement in the editing disputes precludes neutrality.

Again, an WP:ANI (or a dispute resolution procedure) occasioned by the unblocking by an administrator of an editor's 24-hour block for currently-permissible archiving should not be turned into a "witch hunt" and a "free-for-all" listing of every complaint any administrator or other user may have had over a 3 1/2 year period. To "punish" a user retroactively in this instance as a result of simply a request to unblock and an unblocking and an statement that the archiving was within policy is unbelievably unfair. No one would want to edit Wikipedia under these conditions.

I have done the best I could to try to bring accuracy and reliable and verifiable sources to Wikipedia articles; SlimVirgin particularly did not like my changes to some articles; I have withdrawn from participating in editing some of those articles due to the editing conflicts. But to post in this WP:ANI [Ed. (NYS): Now archived NYScholar block overturned.] as if there is not any other context but my edits is particularly and egregiously misleading. I have collaborated well with some editors; when administrators themselves are personally involved in editing articles about which they then try to make administrative judgments, their neutrality must be questioned. For my full response to Hesperian's and others' requests for comments and responses, see earlier parts of this talk page (and the links that I provided).

Retroactive changes to Wikipedia's policies and some people's (controversial) desire for such future changes cannot govern an editor's past activity in Wikipedia. At this point, failing to recognize the unfairness of trying to "punish" me for past activity that was at the time in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines greatly calls into question the integrity of the administrative process in Wikipedia.

Finally, when some administrators "demand" detailed responses to a posted comment in a talk page (Moondyne's above), no subsequent administrator should come along and then complain that the responses from this user have been "too long" or this or that. You get whatever response the user is able to construct. This page (and the previous 18 archive pages) hold my responses. Generally, I respond to all (what I regard as) reasonable requests for a response. If I find the request unreasonable--in Moondyne's case, the post at top followed my explicit request that he not post in my talk page: see User talk:Moondyne#Response and the editing history. I deleted the post because it was evidence of total disregard of and disrespect for my clear expression of my wish not to have to deal with comments in this current talk page so that I could do my work outside of Wikipedia. I have now had to spend 3 solid nights and 2 days before them responding to these outrageous charges that I do not respond or that I do not respond in the way some people would like me to. As long as I reply in as civil a manner as I can, I am responding appropriately. To then claim that my detailed responses are "tendentious" or too long or too short or not enough or too much is to move the bar each time. No user in Wikipedia should be subjected to this kind of treatment. One strong policy in WP:CIVIL is not to created tension and conflict; Sarah has done exactly the opposite of that policy in this talk page. If I am by virtue of WP:TPG permitted to delete comments from my talk page, including warnings, then I am. I don't even delete the warnings usually; I generally archive them. I did not even know that Moondyne or Sarah were administrators until yesterday; often I do not know which users are just editors and which are administrators. The comment that Moondyne posted appeared to me to be another user's comment, it ignored my requests for not posting such comments, I read it, I deleted it. I did not at that time want to take the time to respond to it. That was and is my prerogative according to WP:TPG. If and when that policy page changes, I will abide by the policy page. Right now, my archiving practice abides by WP:TPG.

Also note: I have not yet archived this page. Cue me when this discussion is "over" and/or I will archive it (it is very long) on Tuesday night, my time. I am the only one who has commented on this page on Monday through Tuesday a.m. 7:50 a.m (ET). --NYScholar (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see again: WP:ANOT. I think some of these administrators might also want to ask themselves how well their own archiving and editing practices and editing summaries and editing histories would look with this kind of retroactive scrutiny. (I am afraid that I am simply too tired to go through the whole "show preview" process at this point; I will correct typographical errors about 8 hours from now. Please excuse typographical errors that remain. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in text

That is a lot of text. Re "I did not even know that Moondyne or Sarah were administrators until yesterday; often I do not know which users are just editors and which are administrators." I would note that that should not matter - you are expected to be civil to all editors, not just those with specific responsibilities. From reading the above, I think you have missed the entire point - the problem was not your archiving per se, but the (intended or otherwise) effect of it in the circumstances in which it was performed (literally seconds after serious questions being raised) - to shut down questions and terminate scrutiny of your editing and behaviour. That is never acceptable under any circumstances. As editors in a communal editing environment we are all accountable for our actions. All of the people who have commented, including the administrator who blocked you, are often held to account on our own talk pages or in other fora. If your behaviour raises questions, your convenience does not exclude you from scrutiny, just as comparable situations involving myself, or Hesperian, or Sarah or anyone else would not exclude us from scrutiny. We're not asking you to do anything that we haven't done ourselves. Orderinchaos 02:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its wrong to say you are following TPG. Just because the guideline is largely silent on this, except for: "When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, do not delete the content — archive it" (my emphasis), you cannot claim or imply that you are following the norms of Wikipedia. —Moondyne 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As others have been doing, and as I respectfully requested not be done, you are taking my comments out of context; I mentioned that I did not know that they were administrators only because of the emphasis in their own and/or Hesperian's references to these users being administrators (and suggesting that somehow their comments to me on my talk page are ones that I am "demanded" to respond to). Scroll up to their comments suggesting that I should be paying more attention to these posts from Moondyne and Sarah because they are administrators. When I saw the post at top from Moondyne, I did not know that Moondyne was an administrator. But I did know that I had already been asked to do a "favour" by Moondyne, that I had spent time doing that "favour" (creating a user subpage--listed now in links at top), that Moondyne had not acknowledged my thanking him for the comment or that I had complied with considering it and created a user subpage) and that, despite my very explicit requests (See User talk:Moondyne#Response) that he not continue making such requests on my current talk page (due to my not wanting to take the time to have to respond to them because I was busy working on my own non-Wikipedia work projects and could not respond further), he came back and did exactly what I asked him not to do. Moreover, as it states in WP:NPA, it is not a "personal attack" on another user for me to have pointed out that another user (Moondyne and some others--e.g., Pairadox) were in my view engaging in "ridiculous personal attacks" via their editing summaries about my edits and on my current talk page. To state civilly how one perceives that is not considered in Wikipedia a "personal attack"; I felt "harassment" on this talk page, and I said that in short in the phrase "ridiculous personal attacks"; I was (as I state in response to Hesperian's "demand" that I respond to Moondyne's question at top, which I had read and deleted bec. I did not want to respond, taking further time to do so (given the time I had already taken to comply with the "favour"--see User talk:Moondyne#Response); Hesperian added back in the comment I deleted, and both Hesperian (whom I also did not at that time know was an administrator) and Sarah (whom I did not know was an administrator, despite the Nov. "E-mail? post") stressed that I had ignored a request from an "administrator" (Moondyne). Actually, I had just finished responding to the earlier request from Moondyne, with a thank you message on his talk page, as User talk:Moondyne#Response documents. To my chagrin, after that, I saw a gratuitous ref. to a past version of my edit (one well-sourced statement, which I quoted for discussion in Talk:Heath Ledger) with repeated linking (more than once) to show up an editing summary written by Moondyne (falsely) claiming that an earlier version of the quoted sentence there was a "POV rant" and "fluff"--which that sentence (in both earlier and later versions that I composed) is not. To me the total disregard for my explicit requests to Moondyne and in "N.B." not to place such discussions on my user talk page and to place them instead in the talk pages of the articles where the content is appropriately being discussed (by me, him, and others) was a personal affront, which I called (along with Pairadox's listing of multiple links to my past edits gratuitously and which I deleted after seeing them) "ridiculous personal attacks"; they are and were, in my view, implicit personal attacks, "harassment" on my current talk page--requiring me to take time that I did not want to take to deal with. The episode led me to conclude that I "have had it" with these users (who refuse to be courteous enough and compassionate enough to acknowledge and comply with my requests not to harass me).

I am aware of WP:ANOT, and I have referred these users to that page. Administrators are subject to the same policies and guidelines as other Wikipedia users; they should not be violating WP:TPG as these apply to WP:UP. Notice that after her repeated "restorations" (editing/refactoring and related loss of my own comments, which she says I did not make) from my own talk page (this one), Sarah has now proposed that administrators and others be permitted to "restore" content that is archived in user talk page archives to these other users' (e.g., my) current talk page. (See talk page in WP:TPG.) That appears to me to be an attempt to rationalize and have policy and guideline changes rationalize and justify what she has already done that breaches current WP:TPG and WP:UP in her repeated changes to my current talk page(s). Her changes to my current talk page retroactively (after my totally-permissible archiving, as per current WP:TPG and WP:UP, resulted in her deleting my responses to Hesperian's "demand" for me to respond to Moondyne's restored (by Hesperian) comment at the top of this page--which I did write, despite her still-posted commments to the contrary in both the WP:ANI and above--and her changes to my own box called "N.B." (scroll up or see link at bottom), which I am entitled to write and which should remain in my current talk page, not be reverted or deleted via Sarah's changes to this page. Her editing this talk page after I archived it by copying and pasting it to archive 18 (see that page) resulted in false claims about the content of this page because of those deletions. They amount to refactoring my user page, which administrators, like other users, should not do (except perhaps for an updating of a unblock request's coding so that it no longer appears active after a block is unblocked). To re-add material that I archived and to lose my own interim comments in the meantime created editing conflicts when I was commenting on this page and lost my comments posted prior to her changes. She created a lot of confusion about what I actually have written as a result of those changes. The only editing of my current user talk page that is permissible by WP:TPG and WP:UP is using edit mode to add a new section and comment. To edit my user talk page otherwise (except for updating administrative templates after acting upon them--e.g. unblock reqs., block requests, administrative warnings) is to step over the bounds of authority. As indeed you state, administrators are subject to the same Wikipedia policies and guidelins as other non-administrator-users are subject to. We agree on that point. --NYScholar (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have to go to bed early tonight. Due to emergency home repairs in frigid weather in the past 2 days, I've had less than 2 hours sleep one night and no sleep last night. I cannot deal with this matter any further. One needs to read my previous comments and to look at the comments that I made that were deleted as a result of Sarah's editing of my current talk page. I'll have to correct links and typographical errors another time, if I want to take more time to do so. Right now I don't have time, and I'm too tired; I have to get up early tomorrow for a doctor's appointment and we expect 6-8 inches of snow tonight, which may lead to further travel problems tomorrow. I'll use show preview later, bec. of the editing conflicts I'm running into here (twice so far, losing my edits). --NYScholar (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Relevant link re: application of WP:TPG to WP:UP#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space [whole section and related links there]. That applies to all users, including administrators; the convention is not to do what Sarah has been doing to my talk page. She proposes the right to do so, but it is not currently a policy or guideline (and may never be one) in WP:TPG and WP:UP due to the potential for vast abuse (I think, given this experience in this page). --NYScholar (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Relevant link re: what is not considered a "personal attack": "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack."
• Relevant link: In my view, the descriptions of my comments on this talk page (or elsewhere) as "crap", "rubbish", "blatant lies", and the calling into question of my integrity, my honesty, and my value as a contributor to Wikipedia in the kind of language used by others on this talk page and in the recent WP:ANI (intiated by Hesperian, re: the unblock by Sandstein above) is not Civil; these kind of abuses of administrative "privileges" (such as they are) violate WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette, which apply to all users of Wikipedia, including administrators (See WP:Admin), and reveal grievous administrative abuse. --NYScholar (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break in this lengthy thread

You may be getting confused. WP:UP relates to your user page, ie. [User:NYScholar]. As far as I know no-one other than yourself has been touching that. WP:TPG relates to your user talk page - [User talk:NYScholar]. —Moondyne 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think actually that you are confused: there is a specific link to user talk pages via WP:UP and via WP:TPG. I've linked to them. I've read everything on those pages. I am familiar with the terms (which I've linked to earlier) differentiating "user space" (which includes both user pages and user talk pages); scroll up to "N.B." and to more recent comments, where I link directly to discussions of "user talk pages" and what is permissible on them and how it is permissible both to delete administrative warnings (or more generically "warnings") from one's user talk page (where those are conventionally placed) and to archive one's page. Editing with ellipsis (three or four dots) is a partial deletion; these WP pages make clear that the material is always going to be legible via editing histories and thus does not actually disappear even if it is deleted. Except for my deletions of what I consider uncivil or offensive comments or gratuitous comments (see "N.B."), which is far more rare in my practice, I archive what appears on my talk page. In terms of "deletions," I deleted the misleading and unnecessary and multiple links to my "edits" repeatedly posted by Pairadox on my previous current talk pages, and my editing summaries indicate that and why I did so. Those were, in my view, extremely provocative, gratuitous (unnecessary), and a kind of taunting of me. I did not take the "bait"; the comments I deleted (few in number over 3 1/2 years, relative to many others' user talk page practice) are all recoverable via the editing history, with any applicable editing summaries. Convention is also for other users not to continually re-add their comments to another user's talk page when the user has indicated that those comments are not invited due to their being considered disrespectful or uncivil and/or otherwise gratuitous. I have copied and moved comments to article talk pages when I believe others will benefit from seeing them and engaging further in discussion: also documented via my editing history and summaries in this user talk page over these years. --NYScholar (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"User space" in Wikipedia refers to both user talk pages and user pages. Please see all of WP:UP; it was also the intended link in Sandstein's unblock comment (scroll up): he typed "WP:U"; I think he intended to type "WP:UP" (which has the sec. he cites on user talk pages); in any case, WP:U includes a link to WP:UP, "user pages": user page and user talk page. Both kinds are discussed via these various links and additional links provided. I understand the differences. E.g., there has been discussion of the reference to "user space" as including both user pages and user talk pages in WP:BLP discussion pages and in the project page (last time I was involved in discussing it). --NYScholar (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [added citation and fixed link--forgot the "P" as I think Sandstein may have done too. But I don't know that; just wondering about that. One can find a link to WP:UP via WP:U and both can lead one via links to discussions of user talk pages: Wikipedia:User talk page, with the additional link at bottom to WP:TPG (which has a sec. on user talk pages, from which I've quoted throughout this current talk page (and in archive 18, the earlier archived version of it prior to Sarah's "restoration"). --NYScholar (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do now notice (and have noticed in the past) the specific ref. to "user page" (it's confused me before); but I do think that it is not "convention" in Wikipedia for users (whether or not they are administrators) to un-archive ("restore material from") an already-archived user talk page of another user and move it back (in effect) to the user's current talk page; if that were not the case, Sarah would not be proposing that WP:TPG be changed to allow doing that. --NYScholar (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What Sandstein (and I) have already referred to directly and indirectly is WP:UP#Removal of comments, warnings: that pertains to user talk pages and is the basis for his decision to unblock (as he has explained here and in his own talk page and in the WP:ANI previously and as Ned Scott and some others seem to agree with. --NYScholar (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have entirely avoided the point I was making regarding scrutiny. You've cited at least a dozen guidelines, essays and whatever else, but seem to still have completely missed the point. Quite aside from the fact I can't understand yours as your point above is so torturous that it looks like obfuscation, although I recognise it isn't your intention - that sentence "One can find a link..." I'm still trying to decipher. Orderinchaos 05:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion

In conclusion (I hope): what I was objecting to is Moondyne's repeated lack of civility (Wikipedia:Etiquette) not only initially in an editing summary to a later-revised sentence (already quoted as a subject of discussion in a specific sec. of Talk:Heath Ledger) as "POV rant" and "fluff" (and Pairadox's previous similar pejorative characterizations) of my reliably and verifiably documented ("well-sourced") sentence, as if to claim that there was something wrong with me and my editing of the article:

* Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.

• • Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner. [Italics added.]

and that had followed my entirely-civil response in User talk:Moondyne#Response, respectfully requesting that he and others not continue to post about matters pertaining to Talk:Heath Ledger [in my user talk page]. (I won't be able to locate it now, but I do recall that editors are also advised to avoid labeling other people's good-faith well-sourced edits "POV" [in a pejorative manner: implying "bias"], which is provocative as well.) What I can apologize for is mentioning it on the article talk page, which is not a recommended thing to do and warned against; in my chagrin, I forgot that. I could have posted a complaint directly on Moondyne's talk page, but my experience having already posted a civil "thank you" and request to have the person not post further comments pertaining to Heath Ledger article revisions in my talk page had been by then repeatedly ignored (first by Pairadox and then by Moondyne, and since then by many others). --NYScholar (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Finally (again I hope): I still believe that the sentence(s) that Pairadox and Moondyne have been labeling with pejorative descriptions ("POV rant", "fluff", "POV nonsense"; and "quite unsuitable", etc.) are actually not only documented with proper reliable and verifiable sources (both after the sentence and in the separate secs. of the article which the sentence(s) summarize) ["Diffs." link already supplied above; scroll way up] but that they [my sentence(s)] are precisely in keeping with actual Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:POV, given the positive meaning of defining and developing various documented pertinent and notable points of view on the subject of an article.

• Diffs. (earlier version);
• Diffs. (revised version). --NYScholar (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• See Talk:Heath Ledger#Deletion of pertinent well-sourced material and its sources: all already discussed in detail in that talk page section and above in this current talk page (scroll way up to after Hesperian's "demand"). [added links. --NYScholar (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My sentence(s) follow: "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." At the point that we were editing Heath Ledger, it had become a "controversial subject" and, certainly, a "major point of view" at that time on him and his what I termed "untimely and unexpected" death [used "loss" for variety so as not to keep repeating the word "death" in version quoted above] (as documented in the sources cited) was and still is the "point of view" of his family, friends, [colleagues], fans, and journalists covering the "story" pertaining to him. At this point in time, his notability due to the timing and circumstances of his death raised controversy, including one I mentioned in the lead since deleted by those other users who happen also to be administrators: "heightened concerns about abuse of prescription medications" (or prescription drugs), which have since I wrote that sentence actually led to articles on that very phenomenon (not cited in Heath Ledger [yet]). This is a serious omission from the article that one needs to ask both Moondyne and Pairadox to justify in civil (not uncivil) terms. I still do not understand why the sentence that I composed and then revised (its last version) is "quite unsuitable" (Moondyne's term) for the lead of that article. --NYScholar (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And in conclusion...

Seriously, I don't have the time or interest to read through the humongous amount of material you've been posting. Which unfortunately is a big problem: you bombard people with such massive amounts of text that they just give up because to even begin responding requires a huge amount of time and devotion and few, but, perhaps, your mother would be prepared to make such an investment.

I suggest this matter would be over if you would agree to stop archiving active discussions and to either post evidence supporting your allegations that Moondyne engaged in personal attacks and that I edited your archive pages etc or withdraw such accusations. We can all then move on and be done with this. Sarah 05:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to the above incendiary and clearly personalized comment

[Now even bringing up my own mother (who happens to be very ill at this time:]

Obviously, you've missed where I had already explained and posted the evidence and supported my comment and just really don't get it. Perhaps if you read the responses your edits led to deleting (which I restored) with some degree of respect (given your vociferous and repeated "demand(s)" for responses, you could have saved both me and others a great deal of pain. Your comments on my talk page are not only uncivil, they created far more stressful conflict than anything I myself have stated. If you are unwilling to read my responses, then don't ask for them and stop posting on my talk page. You are clearly at this point in breach of WP:AGF (as I believe you have been for some time). I explained exactly what I meant, and, I've also cited WP:POL in WP:NPA clearly stating that my stating that Moondyne et al. (and you here and elsewhere, espec. in the WP:ANI) have yourselves been engaging in personal attacks of me and my character and my integrity as well as my edits (including my archiving of my user talk page) is not considered a "personal attack" on anyone. It is a statement of my perception of the situation, which I regard as fact. --NYScholar (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider the "discussion" with Sarah et al. over. The response I just got clearly disqualifies Sarah to comment further on my responses. She does not read what she provoked. --NYScholar (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I didn't read it. I told you I hadn't read your very, very long rantings. I haven't bothered to read a single thing on this page since the weekend and I have no intention of sitting down and spending an inordinate amount of time going through the most ridiculous volume of text. If your evidence of personal attacks is the edit summaries "fluff" and "POV rant" then you owe Moondyne an apology poste haste. Characterising edits as such is not a personal attack. If you feel otherwise then unfortunately you're arguably far too super-sensitive to be participating in a collaborative project. Sarah 06:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And that still doesn't deal with your repeated accusations that I had been editing your archive pages. Either provide some evidence of that or admit you were wrong and retract. Sarah 06:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• [....]If you had read the above discussions that I supplied already in response to your and others' "demands" on this talk page, you would see that I have already linked to the "diffs." where your editing of this talk page and "restoration" of my archived material (through some process) appears; in the course of that process, you lost my intermediate edits, including those to my "N.B." box (I've already documented that). You are rude, uncivil, and lack compassion. I suggest you knock it off at this point. If anyone is "super-sensitive", it is you about matters that do not actually involve you initially: you have not edited Heath Ledger and Moondyne spoke earlier for himself, and I have responded to him respectfully and others (under these circumstances). But there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires me to tolerate your continuing verbal abuse. Again, I suggest strongly that you knock it off. You've said quite enough about these matters. You have disqualified yourself as a commentator in view of your refusal to acknowledge your own changes to my talk page and to acknowledge responsibility for having deleted my comments from it, comments which directly responded to Moondyne, Hesperian, and you. Enough is enough. This page will be archived in a reasonable amount of time. You have full access to my responses (scroll up) and to the archived discussions. If you are unwilling to read them, that is your decision. --NYScholar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you also missed the apology that I did make, because you didn't read that either. Your loss. --NYScholar (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)LOL You suggest I knock it off?! You make false accusations about multiple people, I request you prove or retract and I'm the one who should knock it off!? Hehhe. At least now you're actually admitting you made bogus allegations and all your future edits should be viewed in light of your unreliability in terms of truth and poor interpretation of evidence because all you're showing is that I restored this here talk page to the last version before you removed content still being discussed and that I never made a single edit to your archive pages. "...in view of your refusal to acknowledge your own changes to my talk page..." Er there's another lie. I've never refused to acknowledge edits to this page. In fact, I've said several times that I restored this talk page to the last version before your removal of threads still under active discussion. What I have denied and continue to deny is your allegation that I touched your archive pages. Still waiting for a single diff proving that. Mmmhmm. Sarah 06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Already posted diffs., but the fact that you won't read the comments that I post or even examine your own editing history pertaining to changes you made to my talk page (which looked to me like copying and pasting the archived material back onto the current talk page--"restoring" it euphemistically and repeatedly in this talk page, in the WP:ANI, and in the talk page of WP:TPG, means you have not seen my links to "diffs." Scroll up and look at full editing history for your own edits to this talk page:

• (reposting this link to) Diffs. 190366150) and many of your subsequent "newer" edits; see other links to "diffs." I've already supplied throughout this talk page in response to your demands for "diffs." links. The first one shows how your "restoration" lost my own previous edit of the "N.B." box; others show material in red that I wrote missing from your version(s). Can't time more time to reconstruct diffs. links; I've already supplied enough of them to document my point. Your "restoration" of material that I had previously archived in archive 18 resulted in loss of my own comments made since I had archived it. (One must scroll throughout editing history and read the talk page to find the links; I'm not providing them again; I've already done it, and just start you off with the link that I have reposted in this paragraph.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I really don't see how I can get through to you and I guess it doesn't matter anymore because the points been made and everyone can see well and truly that no matter how you paint things, you cannot provide a diff of me editing your archives because it never happened. I have said all along that I restored the active threads you deleted because people were still posting to them; I have never denied that, so I don't know why you're intent on proving I did something i've always said I did instead of proving what you've been asked to prove or retract.Either you're playing stupid to avoid admitting you were wrong or you really quite seriously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Anyone will tell you that this page, your talk page, is not the "archive" and showing I edited this here talk page does not prove your accusation that I edited your archives. But don't worry, I'm going to let you off the hook on that, in part because I'm really starting to feel sorry for you, in part because I can see there are other issues going on and in part because everyone here can see for themselves that your accusations that I went into your archives and edited them are utterly bogus and unsupported by the evidence. By the way, I thought you had a "publication deadline" and loads of off-WP work. I just note this because you've been hyper-editing on this issue for days now. You might want to get back to your work lest you miss your deadline. Sarah 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From the editing history, as cited already just above and also earlier; if Sarah doesn't read the comments, she has no idea what I've posted; I've already explained many times: you cannot argue with Diffs. 190366150; all the material that she inserted there and subsequently is quoted ("restored") in her word from my archived material; how she did it is not the point; the point is that in the course of doing that, she lost my own comments. I don't have to say anymore about this. I suggest you focus on something and/or someone else. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I've moved on. --NYScholar (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sparky, that's a diff of your talk page, not your archive. I've said a million times that I edited your talk page to restore the last version before you archived active threads. You have never provided a diff as evidence of me editing your archives. Please ask someone to explain to you the difference between a talk page and an archive. It might help you keep up if you understood the terms you are using. Sarah 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Copying text from an archive to a main page is not editing an archive. No bytes were changed in the archive as a result (see [4]). I've looked through the history of all of your last four archives and the only edit not by yourself is by User:B to delink your unblock request as it was showing up in a category somewhere. Please stop making false allegations - this is a severe breach of good faith. Orderinchaos 08:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The inescapable problem

Let me just be clear for everyone following along.

NYScholar wrote:

"For new discussions one is supposed to start a new section on a talk page, not go into an archived talk page and change it. Sarah's activities on my talk page and in my talk page archive are overstepping any administrative boundaries and she is engaging in administrative abuses of Wikipedia's own WP:TPG, which allow me to archive discussions and to remove both warnings and other comments from my own user talk page."

"Sarah has gone into my archive page and taken material out of it and placed it back on my current page,"

"The archive page clearly says that it is not to be edited by others"

Now, to prove the accusation that I edited his archives, NYS cites a diff of me editing his talk page, not his archive. I have said all along that I restored the talk page to the last version before NYS prematurely archived it so his diff is redundant and doesn't address the actual accusation that NYS has been asked to prove or retract. In fact, the history of NYS's archive shows very clearly that it was never edited by me, that the only people to edit it were NYS and admin B. [5] Case proven, lie exposed. Thank you and goodnight. Sarah 09:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring by using editing histories: older versions of current page (material archived in 18 by me)

The person (Sarah) copied and pasted the content from archived material and in doing so stepped on my previous edit, losing it: examine it again. Look at each edit. At the time it happened it looked to me as if Sarah had entered editing mode in the archive 18, highlighted the content archived, or did the same in an earlier version of the current talk page via editing history, copied and pasted the material back onto my current talk page, losing my intermediate edits that had been posted while she was doing that. Therefore, my changes to my own talk page in "N.B." disappeared and were replaced by an older version that she was "restoring". There is nothing "false" about what I am saying; it's borne out by the results. I'm not talking about leaving an editing history in the archive 18; I'm talking about moving the material that I had archived back into the current talk page using an older version of the current talk page, losing my comments. It happened more than once. If you follow each edit she made, where she was "restoring" content that I had archived, all the + comments she added, are based on older editing versions. When I saw the results, it appeared to me that she copied and pasted from the archive 18 (which would not leave a trace in editing history), but she could also have created the same problems by using older versions of the current talk page and losing my own edits to it. That's probably how she did it. The result is the same; replacing more current content of my current talk page with older content. The "Diffs." that she asked for are "Diffs." I supplied much earlier above; she just hasn't read the comments with those "Diffs." End result: my actual later current talk page comments were reverted by her changes to my current talk page after I had archived it. She cut and pasted from some version of the comments that I had archived. My own later changes to my talk page were deleted by her actions; see each of her "newer edits", which are numerous. --NYScholar (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [added missing word].

Furthermore, the result is what I'm complaining about: undoing what I had done without asking permission from me and losing my comments (throughout); many of those comments do respond to what she was asking; yet she still apparently has not bothered to read them or even to look at her own editing history on this page. I had thought she did it by using the archive 18, but apparently she did it by using old versions of the current page via its editing history. Result: loss of my comments when she did that. --NYScholar (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be straight about this. You have openly and plainly and repeatedly accused Sarah of breaching the text in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 18, which reads:

• Do not edit the contents of this page.

She and I have proven she did not. You keep insisting she did, by citing a diff that proves something entirely different. I would argue that your previous unusual archiving practices of in-progress discussions minutes after someone posts to you is the reason why Sarah accidentally removed part of the newer text - in the version she would have viewed, the text was not there to begin with, so she did not make an active decision to remove it (I know this as it's not actually an infrequent occurrence on high traffic pages). Had she realised this had occurred (and the software does not automatically tell you it has), I have no doubt she would have restored it - she is a user of many years' standing with a good record of good faith collaboration with other users. But you have made an allegation, it has been disproven, and you seem to be intent on maintaining this belief to the point of incredulity. You are now making more allegations and showing considerable bad faith. Please stop it. Orderinchaos 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you both know what I am talking about. You are ignoring the result; loss of my comments on my own talk page that postdated earlier versions that I archived in 18. Whatever method she used to edit my current talk page by "restoring" earlier versions of my current talk page (at the time), which I myself had archived, was a reverting of my own edits and lost them. If you read my earlier comments, you would see not only my stating that this could have been accidental; but that's not the point: the point is the editing of my current talk page that she did resulted in loss of comments that she then complained that I had not made, when I had made them, and posted such false claims in an WP:ANI, when the only reason the comments weren't there is because they had been lost as a result of such editing. I've posted the "diffs." as she asked; the record is there. I've seen no apologies from her for stating that I did not comment on matters that I did comment on or any attempt to even read my comments; in fact, she has stated the opposite: that she won't bother to read my comments. If that is the case, she has no business making claims about what I have stated or not stated; she hasn't read the comments, so she doesn't know. There are large sections of comments missing from the "restored" current talk page, resulting from a variety of "editing conflicts". If she hadn't been editing my talk page in the manner she did, this would not have occurred. She could simply have linked to my archived talk page; she didn't have to copy and paste from old editng pages: those are reversions, multiple reversions of my work. --NYScholar (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly dont care if you had comments inadvertently lost as a result of my edits. You shouldn't have been archiving a thread that was still being edited by established, good faith editors. If you pull that sort of crap in an attempt to bully others and shut down communication then it's your own bad luck if you lose edits in the process of it being reverted. Sarah 09:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Excuse me, NYS (I'm sorry but I cannot call you "Scholar" anymore), I did not copy and paste anything. I never even looked at your archive until you repeatedly accused me of editing. As I have said dozens of times now, I simply restored the last version of the page before you archived it prematurely. I have provided diffs above to prove there was no difference between my version and the last version before you archived. I really don't understand why you are continuing to argue things that are plainly not true. Now Orderinchaos, an otherwise uninvolved admin, has reviewed the situation and told you likewise and still you argue otherwise. I think you have some serious issues going on that can only be dealt with off-site. Please do so. Wikipedia is not therapy and this really goes beyond the bounds of Wikipedia's purpose or the sort of behaviour Wikipedians should be dealing with. It's fortunate in some ways that in this instance you have come against admins who won't be bullied and dismissed but I truly worry about the impact your behaviour on other editors and on new people who are likely to be frightened off by your rantings and accusations. Sarah 09:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I regard the comments on me personally above, such as statements that I "have some serious issues going on that can only be dealt with off-site" and the references to "therapy" as further personal attacks that are obvious violations of WP:NPA, as are many of the previous comments made by that administrator and those taking her position and commenting on me on their own talk pages and in other Wikipedia talk space. As I have already stated, if anyone has been "bullied and dismissed" ("dissed" repeatedly), it is not them, but I. I refer them to WP:Etiquette, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF, as well as WP:NPA. I will be archiving my current talk page on the night of February 17, 2008 (ET), due to its length and the fact that I have already stated (several times) that I do not want to participate in this discussion (scroll up) any further and consider it to be "over" (see below). Given the preponderance and continuation of personal attacks, the circumstances do not warrant my further participation in discussion with them. I am working on non-Wikipedia related projects that I have to get to press, and I cannot and do not want to take any more of my time to reply to these administrators any further. I have made my position clear and it has been consistently ignored or maligned. I have objected strenuously and continue to object to this kind of treatment of a longstanding editor who edits in good faith (me) by these others. --NYScholar (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I double checked. No apology found. I'd be grateful if you could provide a diff. —Moondyne 06:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is on this talk page in recent comment above and please see your own talk page for my quotation of it in User talk:Moondyne sec. 190858975, with that diff. you request above: Diffs. (191079388) (as well as previous post there: Diffs. 190581507 Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) [diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)][Diffs.]

That diff is from three hours ago. You got around to apologizing three hours ago? Pairadox (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My participation in this discussion over

(ec) Under the circumstances, my participation in this discussion is over. --NYScholar (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Logging out. --NYScholar (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reverting of my archiving of my current talk page

The previous archiving that I had done was reverted on this current talk page in edits made by Sarah. In reverting to a previous version of this current talk page (in her attempt to "restore" the material that I had archived to the current talk page"), she lost my own interim edits to it made between when I archived it and when she reverted to and subsequently edited that earlier version. My archive page 18 still contains the material that I archived at the time prior to that reverting [clarified with my own editorial bracketed notes]. Due to several misleading statements made by Sarah above, I have returned to repost the pertinent link to "Diffs.", the first of which I already posted several times above [...] [Constructing this list and what follows it has taken longer than I had hoped it would]:

• 1. Diffs. 190366150. One may use links there to old edits and new edits to follow the reverting of my current talk page that I had previously archived and to see how my own subsequent interim editing of it got lost. Archive 18 contains the material as I archived it; the current talk page contains material that I had archived from a previous version of the current talk page reverted to by Sarah. That reversion caused my edits made between my archiving in 18 and that previous version to be lost. (I already explained this several times above, after I realized that she had actually reverted to a previous outdated version of this page. --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. See also her doing a similar "restoration"/reversion in Diffs. 190282879.[Added link to a related "Diffs." as well, where my interim edits were also wiped out by Sarah's "restoration"/reversion on Feb. 9, prior to the one she did on Feb. 10 (linked above several times already). --NYScholar (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. See also her doing a similar "restoration"/reversion in Diffs. 190287721, resulting also in losing my interim edits, some of which are comments responding to requests for comments and which she says in an WP:ANI that I never made. I did make them, but she deleted/reverted them by reverting to an earlier version of my then-current talk page. [.... see below] --NYScholar (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)]
  4. See also Sarah's continuing "restoration"/reversion in 190293432; some of these reversions resulted in putting back on my current talk page more than once what I regarded as gratuitous comments by other users that I had already deleted, as explained in my editing summaries, and that I had already responded to, along with my responses. I had to go into the editing history to find and to restore my responses.

One needs to examine the full editing history of this current talk page over the past week (approx.) in order to find Sarah's and others' additional reversions of my current talk page, undoing (reverting) what I had tried to post on it or to delete from it.

I actually had deleted very few comments from others, providing clear explanations in my editing summaries or comments why [some of which was removed by others, or lost via "editing conflicts"].

The rest of the current talk page content I archived (also with clear notices that I would be doing so before I archived it and in what archive it could be found [18]).

To see what occurred, one needs to click on previous and new edits in the editing history. (Other users [including administrators] are explicitly directed not to restore warnings to others' user talk pages after they have clearly been "read" and deleted: WP:UP, Wikipedia:TPG, Wikipedia: User Page.

Wikipedia talk page guidelines explicitly permit a user's own deletion of "warnings" and other content from his or her own user page, though "archiving" is "recommended." (WP:TPG and Wikipedia:User page, etc., already referenced above.)

Other users are warned in WP:TPG not to revert content of other users' pages (including talk pages) (other than to update a block or unblock request coding). If a user deletes a warning, doing so indicates that it has been read. If a user deletes a request with a comment in an editing summary why, that intention is clearly stated. If as user requests that others not continually post comments that are more appropriately placed in article talk pages (as per WP:TPG), then such requests should be respected. Continued posting of explicitly-stated unwanted requests in user talk pages indicates lack of respect and violates WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette as well as WP:TPG for user talk pages. It can be interpreted by users as "harassment." In my experience, that is what it appears to be and that is why I refer to such comments as "harassment."

WP:3RR applies to all Wikipedia users, including administrators.

As for users' own user pages, including user talk pages, there are "exceptions" to WP:3RR: See WP:TPG and Wikipedia:User talk page (with the same sections in each of them). For example, as I and Sandstein (when he reversed Hesperian's block of my account) already mention here and elsewhere: on one's own user talk page, one is permitted to delete "warnings" from others, including administrative warnings, indicating that one has read them. Generally, though not always, I don't delete warnings; I archive them. If I find the comments gratuitous (because I've already responded to them, or if I consider them harassment, or if I have already many times clearly stated to the posters that I have not got time to respond any further on my current talk page [See "N.B."]), I do occasionally delete others' comments from my talk page (as permitted to do); though again, mostly I respond to and archive everything on the current talk page. On this current talk page (prior to archiving it), I responded to warnings with a "WARNING" (Now #Warning after I restored it) about the reverting of my current user talk page, which was losing my responses, but my own heading was deleted by Sarah and replaced with "#Block warning", as I've already mentioned above; it would have been clearer if she started a new section for her own "Block warning" and had left mine intact (it was confusing otherwise, since I did not post my own comment in a section called "Block warning" (See editing history). The deletion of my heading was an additional reversion of my current user talk page.

As "archiving is preferred" over "deleting" comments left on one's user talk pages, aside from deleting a few what-I-regarded-as repetitive gratuitous and/or incivil comments that I had already responded to both in the pertinent talk pages of the articles (where the same comments were addressed to me re: "show preview") and in my current talk page (I had added responses to Moondyne's question (re-added by Hesperian at top) lost due to the reverts and editing conflicts ["(ec)"]). But, other than those few instances, I generally archive all of the content on my current talk page. I highlight, block copy, and move it intact into an already-existing or new archive page. To make my archiving totally understandable and thus totally "transparent", I provide clear statements that I am in the process of archiving in my editing summaries and also ocassionally bracketed editorial notes as needed when there have been significant ellipses (e.g., such as the one relating to WP:BLP discussed above) or changes made to the archive (e.g., in the case of the "Aachtert" matter/request, which I have already fully explained more than once above and in archive 16, with explanatory editorial notes in brackets updating earlier edits). (Further updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive plan for above posts

[....] Update: I will be archiving the material posted after my "N.B." box approx. 24 hours from now, on Mon., Feb. 18, 2008 (ET). --NYScholar (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime . . . .

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day from NYScholar/Archive 19! Have a great day (and weekend) to one and all!!!

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25