User talk:NYScholar/Archive 24

Blocked 48 hours
You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * NYS I made a simple request for you to removed your Person Attack against Sarah but instead you chose to give this diatribe response where you reitterated the PA and then went on to include others both here and on my talk page. I have block you for 48hours for this. Gnangarra 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The block isnt for what was said in the ANI discussion, it is because of the responses on this page. Your response to my request NYS said the comment wasnt a personal attack it was a defensive response to set the record straight, what record does Sarah have that warrants being said to have "no humane compassion". Its this that is reiterating the comment then from there you went on about OIC raising the issue ANI. Shell had over the last two days asked you on this page to stop such comments, IMO you arent accepting the standards of etiquette and civility the community asks for from its editors, your comment about Sarah are uncalled for and are a personal attack, your response to my request was uncalled for and the continuation of these is creating a hostile editing environment, this is doing on going harm. I have remove those comment from the AN/I, if you have any equally disturbing comments about yourself place a link here I'll remve them for the same reason. Gnangarra 07:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are the actual Diffs.:
 * (cont.) Please see the first line in my reply to #request.
 * (cont.) In my view and that of others, Gnangarra's excessive deletions have removed the contexts of my comments and mislabeled as "[PA]" words and phrases that were not "personal attacks" as per WP:NPA. I am quoted out of context and the contexts of my comments, which include far more than one user but also the many users commenting in the WP:RfA that is part of the matter filed in the first place; deleting the name of my former adopter/mentor and labeling that as a "PA" is extremely misleading; so much is removed that one cannot read the contexts of my remarks; the ref. to other users "who were" commenting in that RfA (raised by the initiator) were all those "who were" commenting there who participated in the acts that I describe.  There is no violation of WP:BLP as claimed; to state that there is is untrue and misleading.  Anyone can read the "diffs." to establish what was deleted from the record; I gave this administrator my permission to "edit out" using "< ! -- / -- >", not to delete entirely the contexts of my remarks and to mislabel them with multiple "PA" references. ["You are free to edit it out if you wish.  [That is: using '< ! --/ -->'."]  This is not neutral editing; it is not within Wikipedia guidelines; it misleads people reading the archived discussion.  I intended and committed no personal attacks and no incivilities; I have asked this administrator to leave statements made there about me in the record, so that what I am referring to can be clear.  --NYScholar (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) I committed no violation of WP:BLP as gnangarra claims in the block notice. --NYScholar (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) I called no one "inhumane". That is a misquotation, of a word taken out of its full context (see  and the RfA concerning Ecoleetage, my former adopter/mentor, both referenced throughout the archived discussion) as I have already stated. --NYScholar (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [Just saw this. Thank you.  It appears to me that I am no longer blocked from editing, and I just corrected a problem in a source citation that I noticed while I was blocked. Placing this here, so that Hersfold can see it.  For the record, I still think that block was unwarranted and that it should be deleted from my block record. --NYScholar (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)]


 * (copied from below): [cont. of above unblock request:]Diffs. to comments posted by Shell, my current adopter/mentor, in user talk page of blocking administrator Gnagarra/garra: See Shell's response to this block, made directly to Gnan/garra: via Diffs. and Diffs. .... --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (diffs. were deleted from garra's talkpage but later restored; here's one of the related Diffs. links): Diffs. and Diffs.. [Took a while to find it; see (ec) problem w/ busy Wiki. server as well, posted earlier.  Expect to be logged out/offline finally after finding this. Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC); just realized forgot to post the 2 URLs; just added them. NYScholar (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]


 * I'm discussing the block with Gnangarra. Mango juice talk 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Here's the link to Diffs. with Mangojuice's comments to Gnangarra, which at this writing still has received no reply.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are the actual Diffs. (See above reply to Gnangarra's "comment" and the first line of my reply in #request):
 * In my view and that of others, the excessive deletions removed the contexts of my comments and labeled as "[PA]" words and phrases that were not "personal attacks" as per WP:NPA. I am quoted out of context and the contexts of my comments, which include far more than one user but also the many users commenting in the WP:RfA that is part of the matter filed in the first place; deleting the name of my former adopter/mentor and labeling that as a "PA" is extremely misleading; so much is removed that one cannot read the contexts of my remarks; the ref. to other users "who were" commenting in that RfA (raised by the initiator) were all those "who were" commenting there who participated in the acts that I describe.  There is no violation of WP:BLP as claimed; to state that there is is untrue and misleading.  Anyone can read the "diffs." to establish what was deleted from the record; I gave this administrator my permission to "edit out" using "< ! -- / -- >", not to delete entirely the contexts of my remarks and to mislabel them with multiple "PA" references. ["You are free to edit it out if you wish.  [That is: using '< ! --/ -->'."]    This is not neutral editing; it is not within Wikipedia guidelines; it misleads people reading the archived discussion.  I intended and committed no personal attacks and no incivilities.
 * (cont.) I asked Gnangarra to leave statements made about me in that archived page in the record, so that what I am referring to can remain intact and be clear. --NYScholar (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) I committed no violation of WP:BLP as claimed by Gnangarra in the block notice, etc.. --NYScholar (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) I called no one "inhumane". That is a misquotation, of a word taken out of its full context (see  and the RfA concerning Ecoleetage, my former adopter/mentor) both referenced throughout the archived discussion) as I have already stated. --NYScholar (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) For the record, I engaged in no "harassment" of other users; indeed, I felt as though I was being "harassed" (WP:HAR. --NYScholar (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Note well
Prior to the posting of this block by Gnangarra/garra, I had been advised (not "required") by my current adopter/mentor User:Shell Kinney, an administrator, not to comment further in this talk page about the September [5], 2008 AN/I. That is advice, not a requirement. See the "diffs." posted to Gnangarra/garra's own talk page comments made by Shell, protesting this block. There are no "diffs." provided to support the blocking administrator's complaint. If I am not "allowed" to discuss it further in User talk:NYScholar, neither should anyone else be "allowed" to do so. I will delete all subsequent discussions (made after Shell's stating that I had agreed not to discuss that AN/I here further. Those who are posting them can re-open the AN/I and post copies of their comments in the proper place: the AN/I page.  I am not welcoming further discussion of that AN/I on this talk page; if I have been advised by my mentor not to discuss the Sept. [5], 2008 [AN/I report] any further here, neither can anyone else.  I doubt that forbidding a user to discuss a closed AN/I filed with his or her name in it ("NYScholar issues revisited") is within WP:POL.  (See WP:Talk page guidelines.)  The section heading relating to "Continuing to debate the AN/I reportI"  is Shell's post, not mine (Notice the "I" at the end of it, suggesting that there might be a "II" (unless it is Shell's own typographical error):. My own comments about it have already been archived by the archiving bot, and they provide links to "Diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) Re: Gnangarra/garra's offer to delete perceived "personal attacks" against me made in the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I (many of which refer to the July 2008 AN/I, which contains undeleted "false statements" and "personal attacks" against me (as I perceive them): I do not want Gnangarra/garra to delete the comments others make about me in the AN/I. I want them all left in the record so that people reading it (and the earlier one too) can see what they said and so that they can see exactly what I am referring to. --NYScholar (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for unblock request
[cont. of above unblock request:] See Shell's response to this block, made directly to Gnan/garra: via Diffs. and Diffs.. [I may come back to add further "Diffs." if necessary and if I have time to do that. I was logged off for a couple of hours while I was away from my home computer; I returned to find myself blocked. --NYScholar (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * Users like me are not permitted to edit archives of project pages like AN/I. The request asked me to do something that it would have been a violation of Wikipedia editing policy/guidelines for me to do.
 * Please follow the "previous" and "next" edits in the above link to "Diffs." just provided. The block, even the reason given for it, just illustrates (in my view) additional piling on of already-unwarranted accusations.
 * Shell points out the unfair nature of this block: see "Diffs." linked above (move through to "previous" and "next"; all of the material has been deleted from Gnan/garra's current talk page.
 * Why is the administrator not following the same requirements re: "archiving" of current discussions that s/he thinks was required of me by User:John Carter (though JC says it was not)? There was no "condition" or "requirement" in the closing administrator (JC)'s closing summary/conclusion.  I voluntarily added the archiving bot (which is or was malfunctioning apparently, as I have alerted both Shell and Gnan/garra.
 * My reasonable and logical presentation of my own perspective on the AN/I was posted before not after the "request" by Gnan/garra--it had in it and was edited out in the past day but I put it back in so Shell and Gnan/garra could refer to it more easily.
 * Labeling my comments as a "rant" or a "screed" is likewise still unwarranted and even (in my view) a violation of Etiquette, as I have said in the Sept. 5 now-archived AN/I.
 * Shell has already indicated that this block should be removed (unblocked) and why she thinks so.
 * My list of comments above was posted prior to Gnan/Garra's archive 25 post (which is misplaced and which I myself restored in #request above; see the date/time stamps.
 * I did not make (and do not make) any personal attacks ("PA") against anyone and I have not "reiterated" any such "PA"; the word "inhumane" is not my word; that is Gnan/garra's word (paraphrase), after quoting me from a now-archived AN/I also out of context.
 * Again: please provide "diffs." Paraphrasing and using words like "inhumane" which I myself did not use does not substantiate any claim of my engaging in any such "PA" (personal attack).  I did not engage in any such thing.
 * I did not "accuse" anyone of anything and certainly did not use uncivil or offensive language, though others did so in that AN/I (see the editing summary, which contains improper expletive language by another user); my description ... applies to a person demanding that I continue to reply in an AN/I when I said that I was too tired and felt too ill to continue doing so].
 * I linked to (earlier version of) my current "N.B." (scroll up); I observed that problem earlier in the July 2008 AN/I (was therefore referring back to it, as the user kept dredging it up), and still feel that way. I am being attacked, while I have not attacked anyone (the policy is WP:NPA.  There was no claim of "personal attacks" leveled at me ... [on] on September 5, 2008; all his/her claims have been proved to be incorrect and false. [added clarifications; the context is the July 2008 AN/I. --NYScholar (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * I have engaged in no blockable "behavior" from July 15 until now; and I still question the block initiated in July; nevertheless, I accepted the terms of that block and immediately accepted an offer of adoption.
 * I was not the one who "canceled" the adoption by Ecoleetage. The adopter (Ecoleetage) canceled it on his own after seeing what he says he considered no reason to continue it.
 * I thought he had or would have contacted User:John Carter to inform him of that, but, apparently, he did not. That was Ecoleetage's action, not mine.
 * There was no "collusion" with [my former adopter/mentor] Ecoleetage on either my part or his part, as ... [the user] mistakenly claims there was (in the Sept. 5 AN/I statements at top of it).(See #I wonder above, Shell's response, and my reply to that. [Both posted before the #request by Gnan/garra, which went into an archived talk page, not this current talk page inadvertently it appears now.--NYScholar (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * I have not stated that [other users] engaged in anything but possibly-inadvertent misstatements; nonetheless, they are misstatements and false accusations, which led to further misstatements about my alleged "behavior" from July 15 to September 5, 2008. Any reply I made was later maligned as if it were a "rant" or a "screed" and not accorded the respect that it deserved and deserves as a good-faith response.
 * I pointed out that other users/administrators have not followed the "diffs." to "previous" and "next" in the link given ... [on Sept. 5, 2008] and fail to see the errors in ... [the notice filer's] unwarranted "suspicions" leading to his/her false claims of "canvassing" of me by ... [my then-adopter/mentor], which, even if it had occurred, was not my behavior, but his. I did not perceive that I was being "canvassed"; I perceived only courteous alerts from Ecoleetage to problems in some articles that needed work or that he had been nominated in a RfA.
 * [Other users'] suspicions are not backed up by facts in "diffs." that verify what [they] claim. They are false accusations made apparently inadvertently; mistakes.  I have not attacked ... [anyone] for making them; I have pointed out that they are mistakes, however, and that I should not be attacked on the basis of such false claims.
 * I have had no contact with or from User:John Carter since mid-July 2008, the day he unblocked me and signed off on the [July 15, 2008] adoption ... and explained that there was no condition or requirement re: archiving in JC's closing of the July block (see approx. July 15 in archive page 21).
 * The context ... is the full "N.B." as it existed at the time of the link placed and as it exists now. I did not use the word "inhumane"; that is Gnan/garra's choice of words. It illustrates why statements in one place should not be quoted out of context and used as the basis for a "block" or "sanctions" against another editor of Wikipedia.
 * It is a punitive block for something that did not even occur. --NYScholar (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [Please do not interrupt my unblock request and "Support for unblock request" by posting intervening comments made chronologically after them. Thank you. See below for ... others' comments/replies.  Please see the initial line in my reply in #request. --NYScholar (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * [Ellisions throughout (as requested). --NYScholar (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]

Update
Please consult the user talk pages of Gnan/garra and Shell for more discussion between them of this block of me. I really do not understand how this block is warranted. I explained that I could not change the archived material in a AN/I because the instructions say not to alter it. There are plenty of violations of WP:CIVIL and Etiquette made by others in that AN/I directed against me, yet no one else is being made subject to a block, a ban, other kinds of "sanctions" or being asked to delete their comments about me in that archived material. A retroactive request to delete the record is not something that I am allowed to act upon. It would violate the notice in the archived record. That is not my talk page; that is an AN/I record. To change it would change the record. If the entire thing is not expunged from Wikipedia, it seems to have to stay as is. --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not "harassing" anyone or creating the unpleasant atmosphere resulting from the AN/I posted ... on September 5, 2008, entitled "NYScholar issues revisited". I did not instigate that AN/I.  [Another user] did.  It led to further harassment of me, not the other way around.  If anyone is creating a hostile environment in Wikipedia due to that AN/I, it is not I.  I defended myself against unwarranted and ongoing attacks made there.  The hostility was initiated against me ... and the very posting of that AN/I led to hostility directed mostly against me.  Administrator(s) demanded that I respond, despite my clearly-stated wish not to be forced to do so.  Despite a terrible headache and horrendous misery and loss of my work time, I replied as demanded but complained legitimately of there being a "lack of humane compassion" in the continuation of the onslaught (by more than one user there ... ).  Administrators have demanded now that I not refer ever again to the now-archived AN/I from Sept. 5, 2008; yet they continue to discuss it, referring to me, in talk pages.  This is highly confusing.  I am extremely tired, don't feel well again (my eyes are burning), and will be logging out of Wikipedia.  Administrators can deal with this (in my view) unwarranted block themselves. --NYScholar (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [As requested, ellipsis for deletions (...). --NYScholar (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]


 * I know this is very frustrating and as you noticed, I don't believe that this block is a good idea. I understand why you want to give detailed explanations of the way you see the situation and refute the claims being made, but unfortunately, that sort of thing really doesn't work well on Wikipedia.  First, other editors are only going to read so much of a response - anything you write beyond a paragraph is unlikely to be noticed or considered.  I understand that you will likely feel that this is unfair and that others should consider your entire response; I would agree - but the reality is that on Wikipedia, you have to write very short and condensed versions of what you'd like to say.  Second, other editors tend to react poorly when you say "I did not do this and look at what these other people did that was wrong". Since what other editors did isn't usually applicable to a block against you, you're much more likely to get a positive response if you say "I did not attack someone, I did not edit the archive because the page tells me not to" and leave out the bit accusing other editors of poor behavior.   Shell    babelfish 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To Shell
As I said, my headache is worse, and I am too tired to deal with this matter anymore; I've posted some further links to "diffs." above, but that is all that I can do now. I have to get some rest and relief from Wikipedia and Wikipedians. I will consider whether or not I ever want to contribute anything to the Wikipedia project in the future. Thanks for your assistance. I will not be posting any more messages to you in this talk page for the time being. I am too discouraged to do so. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a new unblock request above, near the last one and updated this page. --NYScholar (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not even sure what to say anymore. You need to drop the AN/I thing, post haste.  I understand that you feel there were many problems with the report, but repeating that fact ad nauseum isn't going to do anything but agitate people further.  There's no way we can move on from here and try to find a way that you can work in Wikipedia's environment if you don't feel you can move on from here.  Shell    babelfish 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandstein's declining my unblock request on basis of length indicated that I need to provide a more concise version in the template, which I supplied.  The subsequent sections were already there the last time you commented on my talk page.  I did not add new sections discussing the AN/I at all.  I removed names in some cases with ... (ellipses).
 * I suggest that you and the blocking administrator take a look at Diffs., pertaining to Ecoleetage's RfA, which I just saw a few minutes ago for the first time when I visited my former mentor/adopter's talk page. It makes the same unwarranted statements as in the unmentionable procedure and refers to me as "the NYScholar case" (???).  What "case"?
 * (cont.) I have dropped "the AN/I thing". But, since according to the blocking administrator, I was blocked for comments on my current talk page (unfairly), as per Sandstein's declining message, I have requested that the unfair block be reversed, which is a legitimate request, based on your own comments as well as mine.
 * (cont.) It is not proper to have what I regard as an unfair block in my block log. It's a retroactive punitive block and not a preventive one.
 * (cont.) I've stated (below/most recent posts) that since I have agreed not to discuss that AN/I on my current talk page, neither should anyone else be discussing it on my current talk page; I have been asked not to comment on it further (by you), and I need to know that this page will not become a free-for-all for other users.
 * (cont.) As I state near bottom, I am and will be deleting all further comments made by anyone else about it from this current talk page.
 * (cont.) I'm not sure that you noticed that I spent a lot of time deleting references to user names throughout this talk page, due to the various "requests" (including yours).
 * (cont.)As I am currently blocked, I am not able and won't be deleting material already archived in archive page 23 (archived by the bot). After I am unblocked, I will delete the wrongly-archived material in archive pages 24 and 25 and move my old post from top of this current page to its chronological spot in page 23, where it should have originally been archived.
 * (cont.) Speaking for myself, I have not yet decided what to do about editing in Wikipedia in the future, after this block is unblocked or expires. I could use your advice re: that.   Overall, I do not feel that I have been treated fairly by others and feel very uncomfortable about participating in a "culture" where good-faith editors (like me and Ecoleetage) can be routinely mistreated. --NYScholar (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell: In the meantime, when you have time to get one together, I suggest that you provide the list you mentioned that you wanted to provide as my mentor (that section of your comments was archived by the bot; it's in archive page 23). It will give me something to consider re: future. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [I'm referring to your last para. in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 23. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]

Re: question posed to Shell about my comments above
Re: a question posed to Shell over on her talk page: I did not say that Shell advised me to delete comments made about the block or the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I from my current talk page; I said that "upon the advice of Shell", which she made to me, not to continue the discussion of the AN/I on my current talk page, that neither should anyone else be doing that on my current talk page. I explained (in this section) that I would be at first editing out (using < ! -- / -- >) and then deleting any comments made subsequent to the blocking of me by gnangarra/garra. (They are still visible in preview mode so that people who posted them can copy and post them as comments to Shell, e.g., or in a pertinent not closed AN/I, which they are free to re-open if they wish.)
 * See "NYScholar issues revisited" (archived discussion): instructions are in the top of the archive box; w/ the closing administrator's Gnangarra/garra's Conclusion/Summary. The directions say that if one wants to engage in "subsequent" discussion of it, one needs to start a new page at WP:AN/I.  My current talk page is not for that kind of discussion.
 * (cont.) My point: If I can't discuss the AN/I on my talk page, neither can others continue to do so on my talk page. I do not welcome further comments about it (since I am restricted from replying to them by Shell and the current blocking administrator's block), and, therefore, I will delete them. To continue to place them here, on my talk page, is, in my view, based on what Shell has advised me about my own comments, inappropriate.
 * (cont.) Re: views about the current block by Gnangarra/garra: people can contact the blocking administrator Gnangarra/garra directly to comment on the block one way or the other.  But one does need to keep in mind that it is a violation of WP:CIVIL and Etiquette to lobby for blocks of other users who are not engaging in any currently blockable behavior (as I am not).
 * (cont.) See WP:BLOCK for policy; blocks are not supposed to be punitive; they are supposed to be preventative. I and Shell have questioned the validity of the current block. Scroll up to unblock request(s).
 * (cont.) If unsure, people do need to consult the links provided in my section above, which will go to policies and guidelines relating to commenting on user talk pages.
 * (cont.) At Shell's request in the AN/I (at end of archived version), she asks people to contact her directly if they have specific concerns about my editing in Wikipedia done after the closing of the AN/I, as she is currently my mentor and is trying to guide me to have better communications with other Wikipedians in talk pages particularly. Please see the end of the now-archived closed report via WP:ANI.  Thanks again.  --NYScholar (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My current talk page is also not for debating Gnangarra/garra's (in my view and that of Shell) unfounded block of me (my unblock request explains my view of it); if you have your own views about the block, please communicate them on Gnangarra/garra's talk page or on the talk page of the last declining administrator Sandstein, not on my talk page, but please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and Etiquette, or you yourselves may find yourselves blocked (!). Lobbying for (or perhaps even against) blocks of me on my talk page (or elsewhere) is, in my view, uncivil and a violation of Etiquette, and I will delete further such discussions from my current talk page.
 * (cont.) I am not currently editing Wikipedia because I am blocked from doing so. I don't want also to become blocked from my own talk page.  If people make personal comments about me as a contributor (violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and/or Etiquette), I will remove them, as per the policies already linked in my "" section; please read it.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]

Update
I updated my template; I am unblocked now, but I am not currently able to spend time editing Wikipedia. I just lost way too much time over the past month dealing with the matters discussed in my recent archive pages and current talk page originating from editing some articles and administrative matters in Wikipedia, and I have to turn back to my non-Wikipedia-related work and to get some much-needed R&R. Thanks to anyone who expressed kind words to me; I did and do appreciate them. I am not posting separate thank yous on individual talk pages (except for Shell's) because I do not want them to be misconstrued by anyone. If I say "thank you" here and above, I mean that literally. There are no hidden motives or implications of any kind. Please just take the words of gratitude literally. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NYS - I wish you smooth sailing in Wiki! Cheers! --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, FilmFan69. I appreciated your earlier comments and appreciate your good wishes. --NYScholar (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've commented on Shell's talk page, I have done some correcting and some minor dev. in some articles that I worked hard on before the block, and some other minor coincidental editing (directed by links to other articles here and there); and today I added a new section to the Kwoka article and commented on an image deletion in another article. I'm also trying to get a red-linked image name out of Wikipedia so that it does not continually show up on my changed watch list (it seems to remain in the history of the watch list ("view and edit watch list") despite its deletion from it (multiple attempts). I don't understand why; it's red-linked again but still there. Perhaps it has something to do with "preferences" selected. (?) I also updated the archiving/archive bot.  I hope the next threads archived by the bot will go into archive 24.  [updated.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Eckhart
Hi NYScholar, listen, is there anyway you can scrutinize the "writing" in Aaron Eckhart's article? Since, you did a great deal of editing in both Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight articles. The reason I ask is that right now I'm trying to aim Eckhart's article to Feature article status and I got an oppose saying that the article needs to be "scrutinized" by someone who hasn't had a dealt in editing the article. I was hoping if you could help out with that. If you can't, no hard feelings. But, if you can, I would appreciate it a whole lot. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on ThinkBlue's talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its alright, I'll take your suggestions into consideration. In the FA review, I was told the same thing about the photography and smoking/drinking info. to be removed from the lead. I guess I will have to remove it, if its trivial use. I will also try to sort out the "recently" statements to the ones you suggested, along with the Manual of Style usage. Again, thank you for pointing these issues out, I will correct them. Thank you for taking the time to tell me this feedback. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Athol Fugard
Just had a look at the rewrite. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've done (I think the categories added a sense of order and progression), I think you've done a really good job. --Nzpcmad (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Re: the decision to omit the categories; they are one perspective on the works of the "Personal Website" of the subject and thus not really "neutral point of view"; also, in terms of format, most articles about subjects who are writers list the works by titles in bibliographical format (titles, dates) and do not categorize them according to any single critical point of view. Also, I added the references to the categories and qualifications about overlap etc. in the source citations. The subsequent bibliography already lists works within most of the same categories in titles of collected plays. As I had said in an earlier version that I revised later, the categories are basically those of Fugard's own collections and really do not represent any useful additional and verifiable information. They are simply the categories already accessible in the linked External links and source citations and they are debatable. Categorizing the works from that particular viewpoint is really not "encyclopedic"; listing works and dates is. If one wants critical discussions, one can go to the sources and ELs cited. They are all accessible to any reader. (I'll copy and move this exchange to the article talkpage so that others can read it there.) --NYScholar (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Copied and moved it there. --NYScholar (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also just moved the source citations up in the Plays section, where they are more noticeable earlier in it. --NYScholar (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship
I apologize for having taken so long to get back to you over the idea of being adopted. I've taken a lot of time to think about things and review past (and present) disputes you've had on Wikipedia. There seems to be a few common threads and complaints about the way you've managed disputes in the past; some have been resolved while others still seem to pose difficulties. As we've talked about before, one of the initial difficulties was edit warring, which doesn't appear to have been a problem in the past year. Its often difficult to understand how dispute resolution works on Wikipedia at first, so its good that you've learned how to use some of those methods instead of reverting; edit warring, no matter who's doing it, is generally harmful to the encyclopedia.

So on to things that other editors have mentioned as being current problems. After reviewing talk pages and in the ANI notices, it appears that other editors feel that even though you do not edit war, you are intractable in discussion and either make it difficult to form a consensus by refusing to bend from a position, or even go so far as to ignore a consensus developing among other editors. There are also concerns that when editors disagree with your assessments of a situation, you tend to react in an aggressive manner and may even go so far as to become uncivil or make other editors feel they are being attacked.

I understand from reading the discussions that you also felt like other editors weren't listening to you and at times felt attacked too. This can make it very difficult to keep your cool, but it doesn't alleviate our responsibility to remain calm and discuss things civilly. The best advice anyone can give you in that situation is to walk away - take some time away from Wikipedia - remember that nothing here needs to happen or be dealt with immediately, so there's always time to come back to a situation later when you can deal with it calmly. Sometimes it even helps to re-read a person's comments later - you may find that you see another way they could have meant their comment that's not as offensive or upsetting. At the very least, walking away when you're upset means you can address the problem calmly which will help in finding a way to resolve your differences with other editors. Shell   babelfish 20:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your thoughtful consideration. I have read your comments and do plan to refer back to them periodically (after they are archived: see below re: bot).


 * In terms of others' perceptions/misperceptions of my comments in Wikipedia discussions, I am aware of them. I myself do not see myself as being either "intractable" or "aggressive"; over all the years that I have been editing Wikipedia, in most cases, I am far more civil and more patient (see the barnstar re: that) than many or even most other Wikipedians; due to the nature of online communications (which are often very ambiguous and unclear), I repeat myself when I think that others may not be understanding my point as I intend it; that to some seems "intractable".  I do stand up for myself; I do not believe that defending oneself against perceived attacks is being "aggressive".  In online communications in Wikipedia, however, I have noticed that standing up for oneself tends to lead to more problems.  There is a fine line between defending oneself (being "assertive") and being perceived as "aggressive", and that "fine line" is often not noticed by others here.


 * In the past, I have noticed the advice in Wikipedia's policy and guidelines regarding civility, etiquette, talk page conduct, and personal attacks, to do what you suggest: either not to reply at all or to step away from Wikipedia for a while to gain perspective; generally, ignoring the attacks (or deleting them entirely from one's own talk page without comment) does work better than responding to them head on, since others perceive the latter as "aggressive" (though that's not how I myself intend my comments at all).


 * On the matter of perceived "intractability": if responsible and civil editors convince me that my position is unwarranted, I do yield to such consensus; if it appears to me that other editors are not people with whom I can work coooperatively, I stop editing articles entirely when I feel that there is no way to do so productively with them.


 * I do take your points. After this exchange is archived, I'll refer back to it.  Again, I very much appreciate your taking the time to come back to post these comments to me, and I do respect your suggestions.  I hope that you have noticed that since you last posted here, I have done my best to stay above Wikipedia fray.
 * Re: your reference in parentheses to "present" "disputes" and to "current problems": I am not aware of any "present" "disputes" or "current problems" in which I am involved [since you last posted on my talk page]. --NYScholar (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC) [corrected QP/Q.  To clarify: I think that I have addressed/corrected the problems relating to any previous disputes already mentioned prior to your comments before 19 Oct. 2008. --NYScholar (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)]


 * On a different matter, for some reason that I cannot figure out despite looking at the code, I don't think the automatic archiving bot is working right. Perhaps if you or some other bot-competent administrator could take a look at it, you or that person could figure out what the problem may be.  I'll leave these comments up for over 2 days to see if the archive bot is functioning.  If not, I'll have to archive manually again.


 * Thanks again, Shell. Much appreciated.  --NYScholar (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry when I said "present" disputes, what I really should have said was "most recent"; I didn't mean to imply that there was anything current that merited concerns. Its good to hear that your aware of how other editors may perceive your editing and manner of speaking.  Writing for an online audience is a very different skill.  The difficulty here is that while article writing is much like writing a publication anywhere, the interpersonal communications on Wikipedia (and other online formats) don't have a real world analog.   It is exceedingly easy to misconstrue another editors meaning, just like my use of the word "present" made sense to me, but didn't impart my meaning when you read it.


 * While there's no reason not to remain assertive, it is helpful to keep in mind that others may read your words as aggressive and make sure that you follow up any misunderstandings and clarify that your words were not meant as an attack or in an aggressive manner. Sometimes, following up and correcting any misunderstandings is the most important thing you can do to keep a conversation productive and on track.


 * Anyways, thanks for taking this all under consideration and please feel free to drop me a line any time if you have any questions about Wikipedia or communicating here. I'm even happy to give comments a second-look to see if I can help head off any of those misunderstandings. (There are days I really wish I had my own copyeditor ;) )  Shell    babelfish 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'll also try to keep an eye out on the archive bot. Just to make sure you're aware, the archive bot only archives entire sections and is set to do so two days after the last message put withing a section, so our further comments in this thread mean that it'll take a bit longer to archive.  Shell    babelfish 21:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do understand all of the above. Thanks again.  --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Danny Dyer
Hello there, I'm sorry about this edit, but as this article is often vandalized I thought it better to be on the safe side. I'll be more careful in the future. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied on your talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind reply. The only reason I have this article watchlisted is frequent vandalism, so I'm just going to keep reverting it. I'm not going to do anything else, so I'll leave you all the hard work ;) as I'm busy elsewhere. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A cookie for your thoughts
Hello, my friend! No time no hear -- hope all is well. Hey, when you have free Wiki time, please check out Vienna Fingers -- that's a stub I helped to save from AfD and a current DRV chat. I am expanding it, albeit slowly, and I thought I would get your input on how to make this shine. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem...admittedly, it is an esoteric subject. Also, are you aware there is a gathering of New York-area Wikipedians on the 16th?  You can check that out at WP:Meetup/NYC.  I may be attending -- it would be wonderful to meet you.  Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [Format-related note: Replied on Ecoleetage's own talk page and manually archived this after 2 days since the automatic archive bot did not do so. Placed request for help w/ fixing archive bot (if broken) in talk page of mentor, Shell, with a request to reply there. --NYScholar (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)]

Major change to your talk page
Ok - I've looked at the bot and your talk page again and I remembered a problem I had when initially setting up the bot on my page. When I first set it up, I had lots of information at the top on my talk page; this seemed to confuse the bot. So, what I've done is taken all of the things you want to show up at the top of your talk page and put them at User talk:NYScholar/talkheader which I then transcluded here. I had to leave the archive template here so it picks up the proper info and obviously the archive bot template needs to be here as well - I've put it last since that seems to work best on my page. I also deleted archive 25 for you in the hopes that it will pick up at the correct spot now. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Shell   babelfish 19:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Shell. That makes sense.  I really think it will do the trick.  I'm replying here so the bot will have a thread to archive/work with.  I'm just moving the archive box template to the talk header page that you created too so it shows up in intended spot.  Crossing my fingers. :) --NYScholar (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed "to the right" to "below" to match where it currently appears. --NYScholar (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't archive as should have done; so have moved archiving template bot to top and hope that will work; altered talkheader page to say to look for archive box with "(at top of page, right)" for directions now. Still hoping it will work. Giving it another 2 days now. --NYScholar (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have noticed that your (Shell's) own talkheader subpage does not include the templates for archive bot and removed the duplication of the templates, moving archive box template up (the way it was during summer). It can probably appear right above my "N.B." but for time being, I'm going to see if this format works.  The duplications of the templates for archive bot and box etc. may have confused the bot on this current talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved the talkheader subpage template to top of page and restored "below" in ref. to archives box. Hope it will now archive correctly.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [manually archived as bot didn't work still. --NYScholar (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)]

Your thoughts welcome
Your input is welcome here. — Realist  2  18:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Replied there.  (No need to comment further here.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the season


Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.