User talk:NYScholar/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NYScholar. 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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

I am perhaps one of the most civil editors in Wikipedia. I believe that my editing record and editing history summaries throughout articles that I work on bear that out. I am also one of the most thorough and conscientious about accuracy of bibliographical documentation (citing reliable and verifiable sources; and annotating possibly-problematic sources discussed by reliable and verifiable sources) and adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The barnstars that other Wikipedians have placed on my user page are evidence of the work that I have done.

Professional editors like me are the opposite of amateur editors; academic scholars like me have advanced degrees in their fields (in my case a Ph.D.), and we do know what we are doing through decades of academic scholarship, major publications, and teaching of undergraduate and graduate students in our disciplines. Often in Wikipedia, I encounter students and others who are not professional editors and others who are not well trained in editing, who just do not recognize the value of advanced training in editorial work of this kind, resulting in peer-reviewed publications (scholarly books and articles). That does not diminish my editorial accomplishments; it just means that they are not well understood by people with non-scholarly backgrounds. I suggest that people look at the work that I have produced (content) and try to focus on it rather than on personal squabbles introduced by those who focus on contributors instead of on content. [Bold print added.]

I did not initiate the arbitration request; I do not have time to deal any further with it. For the months of May, June, July, and August, I will have little to no time to do any editing in Wikipedia or to consult Wikipedia's arbitration process. I will be engaged in scholarly research projects and related travel throughout most of this period and subsequently as well. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: Someone on the arbitration page has elected to take my previous comments off my talk page and to use them as "evidence" of violating WP:OWN. That is simply an absurd misconstruction of what I say above. I have no idea why anyone would misconstrue what I have said that way. What I said is "focus" on the "content" of my "work" and "not" on "contributors", which is fully consistent with WP:NPA and has nothing to do whatsover with WP:OWN. (How that person sees some connection to WP:OWN in what I say above I cannot fathom.)

What that person has done is a clear violation of the policy defined in WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." My attitude expressed above has nothing to do with WP:OWN.

I am fully aware of the policy of WP:OWN. I cite it myself when it appears to me that others are violating it. If I thought I "owned" Wikipedia articles, I would not be editing Wikipedia articles at all. Wikipedia articles are not copyright protected. Everyone knows that.

All my other work is professional in nature and protected by copyrights. Literally, I do own it. I am fully aware that the work that people do in Wikipedia is not "owned" by them. The claim that I have any different "attitude" toward my work in Wikipedia is just plain absurd. I regard the immense amount of my time that I have spent as a service that I have provided free to others. It is voluntary work. It is, as it were, a gift to others. If others do not have the generosity of mind to view it that way, and to appreciate it in the spirit in which it is "given," that is their failing, not mine. --NYScholar 09:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To everyone: Please do not take my comments off my talk page and elsewhere (where they exist in context) and re-post them elsewhere out of context in "evidence" pages in an arbitration matter.

According to the rules governing the arbitration evidence and workspace pages, I am the one who has the option of posting my own words (evidence) and statements in my own space in the evidence and workspace pages and on the arbitration page. I choose not to do that, as I have already provided links to what my statements in my talk page archive 4 and in the talk page of the article being examined. I do not give anyone else permission to take my words out of context from this talk page or from my archived talk pages or from other places where I have written them and to post them elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia users should not be moving material that I write from the place where I write them to other places in Wikipedia. Evidence space given for individual statements is for a user's own words, not mine.

If one wants to refer people to evidence of matters pertaining to the arbitration request, one needs to follow "the prescribed format": as it says on the evidence page: "...it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient."

There is no "prescribed format" in the "evidence" page for lifting passages of an "interested party's" own words from his or her own talk pages or Wikipedia articles, taking them out of context, and reposting them there. That is unacceptable conduct: see Wikipedia:Etiquette. The same thing goes for lifting passages from editing histories out of context. E.g., one needs to provide exact links to the actual "page difference" as required. --NYScholar 09:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was out of the country (USA) between April 10 and April 17, I had no access to computers, and I did not consult or do any editing of Wikipedia during that time period. [I was traveling all day and evening on April 16, returned late evening, and checked my email on my home computer for the first time again early in the morning of April 17 (EST), logging on to Wikipedia after that. That is when I first saw that reliable sources had been deleted once again by others in Lewis Libby; see Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 6 and Talk:Lewis Libby, and earlier archives linked there. Updated. --NYScholar 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)]

In the rest of May and throughout subsequent months, I will continue to be engaged in my own research projects, not consulting Wikipedia, and not able to take further time to edit Wikipedia. Due to my work schedule, I will not be able to take any more of my time in Wikipedia. My archived talk pages and archived talk pages of articles contain the records of my prior work in Wikipedia. I stand by my work, which I consider to be editing in good faith WP:AGF and by my previous comments in my talk page archives and in talk page archives of articles and in my editing history summaries. As an obvious mark of my awareness that I do not "own" the articles on subjects that I contribute work to in Wikipedia, on talk pages and in my own archived talk pages, I have provided other editors with sources to work with in improving such articles. --NYScholar 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated: I have also taken some additional time to provide some reliable verifiable and verified sources for a few articles that I have worked on recently and in the past; others can use such material for making improvements to those articles, according to their own discretion. --NYScholar 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)]

I am a very busy academic scholar, and I have no further time for the kinds of personal disputes that some other Wikipedia editors persist in pursuing. These kinds of disputes do not interest me. I am interested only in providing accurate and reliably-sourced content in Wikipedia articles in keeping with Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, following Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution. I have moved the previous discussions to my archive. (Updated archive. Please see archive 4.) Due to professional work, I will not be able to check this dispute; I have provided additional sources for others to work with to improve the articles in question on their own. (Updated archive. Please see archive 5; it contains that material that I provided as copied from Talk:Lewis Libby.) Recent messages concerning other articles are in subsequent archive pages, beginning in archive 6. I am just adding archive 8 (again; it got wiped out and I'm re-creating it). Thank you. ––NYScholar 19:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC). [Updated. --NYScholar 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)] [I've also updated the links to my talk page archive 4 in the arbitration request statement that I already provided [1]. I am unable to take any more of my time on this request originated by someone else. I have made it clear that I regard it as a worthless personal vendetta against me and, as such, of no significance to either to me or to other truly responsible editors in Wikipedia (a non-peer-reviewed online publication of often-dubious credibility) or in academic (peer-reviewed) scholarship. (See archive 8 as well). --NYScholar 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)]

To everyone: Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. [Having already expended a great deal of my time to respond expeditiously, patiently, and courteously to earlier comments, I simply cannot take the time to deal with them any further.] Please consult my statement on the RFA page and the links that I have already provided and the talk page archives of the article on Libby [and my own talk page archives]. Thanks. [Updated. --NYScholar 03:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)] [Updated further in brackets.] --NYScholar 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC) --[updated in brackets in archive --NYScholar 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)]
- As I have already stated (See archive 8): Please do not take comments that I and others have provided on my talk page out of the context of my current and archived talk pages or comments that I have provided on other talk pages and copy and post them anywhere else in Wikipedia. Doing that violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Such behavior also totally distorts the comments, injects one's own POV into them, and thus violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The actual contexts are where I write my comments and one needs to read such comments in their actual contexts. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)