User talk:NYScholar/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Thanks

Hey there, as you may know, I withdrew my RfA earlier this week. I am sorry if I disappointed you, as you stated your support for my endeavours. However, I could not tolerate the stress brought by the personal attacks and hostility that were being aimed my way. I am on Wikibreak now (just checking the site to make sure no one goofed up my pages) and I am not certain when or if I will resume full editing. But I wanted to say Hello and share my appreciation for your friendship. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Ecoleetage! I have seen the RfA; I am sorry for what you went through. I really hoped it would not lead to what occurred; with scores of editors in support, it is too bad that a handful of opposers caused such grief. I hope that you will enjoy your time away. You have not disappointed me at all. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome. And thank you very much for your smile. ■ MMXX^c.t 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption offers?

I have placed a template indicating that I am seeking an adopter on my current talk page (scroll to top). For context, please see my archive 21 and 22 and [archived] discussion in "NYScholar issues revisited", initiated ... [on September 5, 2008]. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Request

I've taken a look over the Admin Noticeboard and the talk page archives you pointed me at. I would be willing to mentor you, but you need to understand that I believe some of the complaints being made about the way you communicate on Wikipedia are valid. This doesn't mean that everything you are doing is wrong and it appears that this really only applies to using talk pages - from what I can see of your article work, it is very impressive. I would like to work to improve the way you communicate and want to make sure that you are willing to do so as part of mentorship. There are a couple of things I see that I believe would make a large improvement in your experience here very quickly:

Its difficult to determine the gender of other editors just by screen name, so editors will often make their best guess and use that pronoun. More often than not, editors will default to using a male pronoun when they are unsure. You've mentioned before that you dislike this assumption and that you have been offended by other editors using a pronoun when trying to communicate with you and this has caused tension and disputes with other editors that distracts from the actual discussion. In order to avoid having this problem reoccur, you need to either decide on a mode of address that you feel is acceptable and politely let editors know or you need to decide to ignore editors occasional guesses at gender in order to discuss other issues with them. Let me know which option you think is better (or if you have another solution).

Communicating on the internet is difficult at best; without body language or tone of voice to give you clues, its easy to misunderstand each other. This is what the Wikipedia guideline of assuming good faith is all about - if you find yourself thinking that a comment a person made was rude, incivil or an attack on you, walk away for a bit. Come back to the comment later and see if you can't find a different way of understanding what they wrote.

I'm sure there are other things we will find as we go along that will help you learn to get along easier in the Wikipedia community. Shell ^babelfish 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is so very helpful! Thank you very much, Shell. Re: the pronoun: personally, I prefer to use "she or he", or "s/he"; "his or her", or "his/her" (or vice versa), "his/hers", "him or her", and so on. That's just me. But it really is true that scholars can be either male or female, and assuming that a scholar is male seems to indicate some degree of (prob. unintended) gender bias. I will, however, just ignore the use of the male-related pronouns and references to being a "man" and so on in the future.

Of course, I accept your offer to adopt/mentor me, and, since you yourself are an administrator, I wonder if you could change whatever templates need to be adjusted, so that it remains clear that I am adopted. It might also be helpful if you posted a message in the AN/I that that is the case, since I really don't want to go back there if that can be avoided.

Thanks again very much! I appreciate your future guidance and assistance greatly. --NYScholar (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you don't see this for a while, I did write a brief "update" in the AN/I saying that this adoption is in progress. Otherwise, I am taking your advice immediately and not commenting there further unless I am required to do so in the future by some AN/I policy or guideline that I don't know about now. --NYScholar (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the pronoun issue completely, in fact I recently had a humorous exchange over email when a Wikipedia editor saw my full name in the reply (Michelle) and were then berating themselves for having thought I was a guy. Its a common phenomenon in internet communities and something that can take a bit of getting used to. When someone uses male pronouns in reference to me, sometimes I politely mention I'm a she and sometimes I just ignore it entirely; it usually doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand so I try to stay focused on the actual issue. I think it helps if you keep in mind that other editors aren't trying to be rude or offensive, they're just trying to find a way to communicate.

I added my own note to AN/I as well to let people know that we're going to try to work together and figure out some techniques to deal with communicating on Wikipedia. I'm going to try to look over some of the concerns other editors brought up, but if you have anything specific you'd like to talk about, please just let me know. You're also welcome to contact me at any time if you want to run something by me before posting or just to chat about an issue that came up and what you thought about it. If you'd like to talk off Wikipedia, I have a number of possibilities on my contact page; I'm usually around 8:00 - 21:00 EST seven days a week and you're always welcome to poke and see if I'm available. Shell ^babelfish 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell, for this very helpful information. Actually, I did notice the user box in your user page, which indicated to me that you are a woman. I checked because it occured to me theat "Shell" could relate to "Shelley" (I didn't think of "Michelle") which could be either male or female/female or male. (Even the order seems to matter these days!) I'm going to ignore the pronoun references to me in the future, as I said.

I don't use e-mail in Wikipedia or with Wikipedians because I have real-name-based e-mail accounts that put my anonymity in Wikipedia in jeopardy, and my e-mail address gets into people's address books and placed on block mailing lists that I can't get them off of so I get spammed, and I have great fears about identity theft. So our contact will probably remain through talk pages, as it was with Ecoleetage from July 15 on.

I do have a remaining question concerning the AN/I: Is an administrator going to close it with an archiving of the "incident" section? If not, it stays open and people could just keep writing and writing there. I just can't take the time to deal with it anymore.

I am happy that you have offered to adopt me, that we have been able to start, and I will indeed be much more careful (as Ecoleetage had recommended) about being more concise and avoiding commenting on talk pages (article, media, and user). It would obviously save me a lot of time too. Sometimes I leave comments on talk pages only to expand my editing summary if I think it needs further explanation to the people who are longtime editors of an article. I frequently am the one to start a talk page if I'm working on an article and there is none for it. I like the talkheader template, because it contains helpful links for new users who may come along and not know anything about Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. And I like the controversy template for controversial subjects and even images to alert people to pay attention to talk page guidelines in commenting about them. One user once criticized me for putting a talkheader template on a talk page. Is there some guideline against doing that? That really confused me.

If you ever look at my user boxes, please let me know if they need some work. Ecoleetage is big on using courtesy templates (like smile, etc.). Is there a location in Wikipedia where these are listed? And how do you feel about them: would you rather not have them cluttering up your talk page comments; or do you like getting them?

I am happy to make your acquaintance without currently being blocked by you--:) If you want to find your past block(s) of me if you don't remember blocking me, you will find them in my block log. Most people don't notice but some of blocks instituted against me were made in error by administrators who reversed them very quickly. People see them and assume that they were regular blocks or long-standing; only some went through their full time period before being reversed/unblocked; at least one early one within minutes because the administrator mixed up me w/ the WP:NPA offender; I have removed a pers. attack from my talk page and gotten blocked instead of the other person who made it getting blocked; that was reversed. Several times the unblocking of my log-in identity and/or IP address did not work, and it took a long time to unblock them; those glitches also make the blocks look longer than they actually turned out to be. I find that in the past AN/I people were generalizing about my "long" block log, but not realizing that it began in 2005 when I was very new and not as aware of WP:POL as I am now and that some were reversed quickly.

A lot of miscommunication seems to occur in Wikipedia; it can get very scary at times, and upsetting, because it is being copied all over the internet from Wikipedia to other Wikis, message boards, etc. It is especially upsetting when people accuse one of lying when one is actually telling the truth (WP:AGF). I am not "online" all the time; but frequently I am just about to go offline and have stated so, when something catches my eye in my watchlist and I'm editing something. That happens a lot. Last night I really got a terrible headache from trying to read and write in the AN/I, and I was offline for many hours (sleeping). I came back to find someone suggesting that I was lying about being offline; people need to look at time stamps and realize that not everyone is online/logged into Wikipedia 24 hours a day. I actually hope to be offline/logged out more often so that I can eat, sleep, and just be doing things not in Wikipedia. I do not always remember to log out before going offline. Sometimes I'm still logged in when I return. When I am online, my contributions will pop up in my contributions list, if you ever want to check them from this talk page, there is a link at top. Around the time I encountered you last, I developed the material in the user subpage about copyrights etc. (I hope there isn't a rule about being concise on one's own talk page. I'm just writing this because I think that it might be helpful to you as some background. My professional background is described in response to someone who suggested that I am not really a scholar, archived also in archive page 21.

Unrelated question: I think that my archiving bot may have stopped functioning as intended. I've asked for help but no one has come along yet to check it out. If you can or know anyone who can take a look at the parameters in the template and see if they are still okay, I would appreciate that. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought I notice reading this that you dont want to give out/have and email addrs for privacy reasons perfectly understandable hence why I use the name I do. Any what you can do is use something like Gmail or Hotmail and create a generic account that way you have the benefit of email but retain annonimity. Gnan garra 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I forgot to mention (again) that I am deluged with e-mail professionally and have no time to deal with Wikipedia-related mail too. (I just can't spend that much of my days and nights online checking, reading, and replying to e-mail; it becomes oppressive, I find. I lose whole days sometimes responding to e-mail queries from people whose messages I don't expect and my daily schedule gets derailed.) I do already have both Gmail and Hotmail accounts in my actual name; the Gmail was via an invitation, and I haven't looked into an additional account; I almost never use it; same with Hotmail; I also have an MSN mail account, but don't check it; my main accounts are other ones. The whole thing becomes quite exhausting, and I'm glad to take breaks from e-mail. Then there are the mail lists, the feeds, etc. and etc. It can eat up one's whole week and weekend (like this last one). So for the time being, I'm still not using e-mail with Wikipedia and Wikipedians also to give me some space to breathe and live outside of virtual space, in real life. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but it seems as if there is now no distinction between "virtual space" and real life; oh, did I forget to mention mobile (cell) phones and text messaging; it's too too much. As Ecoleetage said recently, I would like the sun on my face (outdoors and without a computer extending my fingertips). I need a vacation ;). Again, thanks for the comment. I'll keep it in mind despite all said above. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot the Yahoo and cable company e-mail accounts; I don't use them either. --NYScholar (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my nickname when I was little was Shelley, which is where Shell eventually came from. It was nice of you to check my user page; that's one of the reasons I have that information there - hopefully its just a quick overview of me to make it easier for other editors to relate to me.

I understand not wanting to use email or reveal your real name on the internet and I respect that. In addition to basic privacy concerns, I'm sure we've all had those friends or acquaintances who forward us the latest junk emails :)

As far as AN/I goes, the section will auto-archive when people are done commenting. I think it make sense to leave it there for a bit to see if there are any more comments and let other editors who've already commented see that you've decided to give mentoring another try. You don't have to respond to everything that's said there, so unless something new comes up, there's no reason to think it will continue to take considerable time.

Leaving comments on talk pages when your edits need more explanation is actually a good thing. By leaving a comment up front, you can avoid confusion later. I'm not sure about the talkheader template actually; I don't think I've ever used it myself so I'm not completely sure what the convention is for its usage. Do you happen to remember any more details about that particular incident?

[I'm sorry, Shell; I have no name or article talk page; just memory that a person came along who kept deleting the talkheader templates as if that was his/her pet peeve; I think them very useful on talk pages for new and inexperienced users, who have no idea that Wikipedia has editing policies; once on the page, one can point up to them and cite specific Wikipedia editing policies to direct them to if they start arguing about one's edits (which happens from time to time); it happened re: the discussions with the user about the academy award charts for youngest/oldest winners; I've "edited out" my numbered items, but I think you would find it instructive to visit the discussion via show preview here; the user did not understand me because he was unfamiliar with the need for in-line citations; I'll take out the < ! -- / -- > temporarily at least so you can see active links to "diffs." --NYScholar (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

As far as userboxes go, I think they're mostly personal preference. You can use them to give quick facts about yourself if you'd like, but there's no real need for them if you don't like them. Templates of the type Ecoleetage uses can be found at - for other similar ideas like Barnstars and other personal awards, you might want to take a look through the pages at Wikipedia:Awards. Personally, I don't mind them, but I don't use them often myself; I've run into editors that love them and also those who hate them passionately.

I've taken a bit of a look over your block log and I think there's a reoccurring theme there; a number of the legitimate blocks have been over 3RR violations. However, as you mentioned, the last of those was over a year ago. So I think on one side, you are correct that generalizing about your block log is misleading - on the other side, its obvious that a number of editors feel that you have had difficulty acclimating yourself and your communication to Wikipedia and that these editors feel strongly enough that they have suggested a community ban. I think the best plan of attack would be to identify what those concerns are and develop ways to avoid those problems in the future.

Miscommunication is unfortunately very easy on Wikipedia or the internet in general. In the particular case you mention, I'm sure everyone has experienced a time when they meant to get off the computer and then found something that caught their interest and kept them there for a while. However, the feeling I got from from the ANI post was that editors felt you frequently mention that you are going to be offline or that you no longer have time to deal with an issue; you have several notes to that affect here on your talk page actually. I think this complaint is not so much about whether or not you are really offline but more about other editors feeling that you are leaving issues unresolved or not taking other editors concerns seriously. I think that when you mention in conversation that you won't be around or responding, other editors feel like you're "blowing them off" or trying to end the discussion. There might be an easy way to resolve this issue - just don't mention when you think you'll be offline; the vast majority of Wikipedia editors will understand that you can't be online all of the time and you can return to the discussion at your leisure without leaving someone feeling like you've dismissed their concerns entirely.

As for the archive bot, I saw the error in your talk history and that seems to happen when the archive template is all on one line (see Q4 at User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ) so I've changed it to a multi-line template which should fix the problem. Shell ^babelfish 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikquette Request

I just wanted to let you know that the main reason I did not comment about your request is that I did not feel it should have been there, considering there was already an ANI. When an ANI is being looked at, incivility is also being kept in mind, and in fact, is guaranteed to happen. The incivility and complaints about it should have been kept inside that forum, IMHO. Glad you're ok with everything that has gone on. BMW(drive) 14:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to thank you for the comment and concern. Adding that here. Sorry it's belated. --NYScholar (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not "okay with everything that has gone on" at all; I only stated that I am satisfied with the conclusion of it (that it ended and was archived); actually an "editing conflict" intervened and my comment (which took two hours to write) would not post as your comment intervened and change the talk page during this period. The following is in part a response to questions that Shell has asked above, and to my desire not to post these on the AN/I page, but in my own talk space, where I can post at length if necessary. I may have to return to edit this; I will eventually have it archived if the bot doesn't archive it if there are not enough replies to it over time to do so. No one need reply to it at all; it is just a comment from my own perspective; the other perspectives are already posted in the AN/I by others. This is my overview of the whole thing. (See below. I've had to remove the "-" from show preview and to add a heading for part directed directly to Shell in reply to her comments above.) --NYScholar (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shell (ec)

Thanks for the corr. to the archive bot, Shell.

I have gone over to the Wikiquette Alerts that I posted and added a check mark for "resolved" to indicate that no one needs to do anything further; by then no one (outside of the AN/I, i.e.) had responded there, so it should be archived and considered a closed request for help. --NYScholar (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It just worked again to archive, adding a new archive page too (23), so it seems to be okay now. I'm glad that you were able to fix that. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the still open-looking AN/I: what still disturbs me is the initiating editor (if one reviews the first post in it) has never recognized that his/her assumptions were incorrect; even though s/he placed my name in the heading "NYScholar Revisited", signaling to others that it focused on me, later in it, s/he says that it was not a notice about my "behavior" but the (that person claims) breach of some kind of "community" rule about the ending of an adoption. Since I am now adopted anew by a new adopter (you, Shell), I think it needs to be made crystal clear that there is no such rule about the ending of an adoption that the original blocking administrator User:John Carter made in his "conclusion" stated in the closing of the earlier incident that Sarah introduced into the discussion of the Sept. 5, 2008 one, linked to, and moved everything in that discussion. That totally lost sight of the fact that Orderinchaos had simply assumed cause-and-effect connections about the canceling of the adoption by Ecoleetage (Aug. 5) and my commenting on articles that he brought to my attention after that and on Aug. 28 and my comments (and they were mainly just comments) in the request by another person to delete an article (the Kwoka article). That was normal Wikipedia activity to help improve and thus save an article that he and others thought notable enough to "keep"; it was Keeper who actually closed that discussion and recommended keeping the article because Keeper said it was being edited and improved and the editing (which at the time was mostly by me) needed time to continue. I think that now, in hindsight, everyone who examines that article (even and especially the uploader of the images to it--Poeticbent) would agree that the subject is notable and the article worth keeping and not deleting. --NYScholar (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my understanding of the situation. You've had some difficulties fitting in with Wikipedia's culture, both with regards to editing and discussion. These problems have been so severe in cases that your behavior has led to multiple blocks (most not recent) and eventually culminated in an "indefinite" block. When this block was discussed, the community essentially said that they were willing to allow you to continue editing if you agreed to work with a mentor - an implied part of this is that the issues editors were concerned with will stop happening. The reason that this was brought to AN/I again is because the issues that caused you to be indefinitely blocked are re-occurring so it was assumed that the mentorship was failing. Since mentorship was the communities way of giving you one last chance to figure things out, if mentorship is unsuccessful in resolving the issues, your account will return to being indefinitely blocked. Neither you nor Ecoleetage fully understood the scope of the original mentorship which is why you're being given another "last chance" to work things out. So in essence, yes, if the adoption/mentorship ends without resolving the problems that caused the original block, the block will be reinstated. Shell ^babelfish 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell: are you telling me that on the basis of a few people's (mostly non-administrators) statements made without "diffs." to support them about my actual "behavior" between July 15, 2008 (beg. of adoption) and Sept. 5, 2008 (filing of that AN/I)--please see later comments about below--I am subject to one administrator's final statement, when that person was herself involved in the previous blocks of me and is not an outside or external evaluator of the situation? Will you please review what John Carter actually stated re: his (the then blocking administrator's) condition re: the then "indefinite block" (of less than one day): [1].

I do not see how either Ecoleetage or I were incorrect in our actions; if you examine my editing in the period of time during July 15 to August 5, 2008 and from August 5, 2008 to September 5, 2008, I would like you to point to precise diffs. (and you probably can find some) that illustrate precisely what you do not think I can do. I cannot be subject to this poorly-conducted AN/I, full of all kinds of mistakes and untrue statements about my "behavior". I really want to understand precisely what you are requiring of me in order to be an editor in Wikipedia; and I want to remind you that this small group of editors who have partipated in the now two AN/I, led mostly by Sarah (who is an involved party in the first one) and has not examined the actual diffs. properly in the second, do not represent the "entire Wikipedia community", which is vast and full of many different kinds of editors, many different kinds of administrators, and many, many, many vandals, of which I have never been one.

I really think this situation is still highly unclear. I don't mind being adopted; I am happy to be adopted; but I do not accept most of the claims in the AN/I and have gone on record refuting them, only to have my refutations totally ignored. Please read some of the other administrator's comments throughout the AN/I re: the lack of "diffs." in it, the responses of Wikedemon, ThuranX, and Sarah to that requirement of an AN/I, and my provision of the refutation of the initial "example" of my said-to-be "collusion" (didn't happen) and "hyperediting" (not what Orderinchaos says it is in his linked item). He's simply misconstrued what he claims in more than even those 2 examples. And people just took off on it as fact anyway. That is not right. If you have precise things you don't think that I should do, please illustrate them with some "diffs." so I know what they are. His are incorrect and many of us pointed that out to no avail in that AN/I due to the determination of a handful of people to either block me or ban me punitively for things I did not do in the period of this (not the earlier) AN/I. Re: blocks (some of which were mistaken and reversed; not all, but some--which reduces the number): for over a period of over 3 years of editing, I do not think that is a large number of blocks in Wikipedia for someone who has been as active a contributor to content as me. There has been no blockable offense or block or any violation at all since July, and I think that that shows improvement. There has been no block possible now, because I haven't broken any Wikipedia policies or guidelines since July.

On the basis of exactly what is this my "last chance" and "last chance" to not do what? Precisely? I don't engage in 3RR violations, I don't vandalize, I am civil, I am respectful, I follow Wikipedia etiquette, but I will not be bullied. Threatening editors and bullying editors is a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL. I do not think these other Wikipedia users, only some of whom are administrators--all admins. are users first and admins. 2nd, however--have the "power" or "authority" to violate Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines themselves; they have done that throughout the AN/I, with impunity. Other administrators posting there have complained about what was going on, yet no one has been warned about his or her own "behavior" there.

To me this seems very unfair, and does not do credit at all to Wikipedia.

Again, just point out to me precisely what I am not to do that would be considered a "blockable" offense or a "sanctionable" offense such as the "ban" that Sarah is referring to, and I will know precisely what you are talking about. Right now, I really don't, because the things that Orderinchaos linked to in the initial AN/I that he file were not true charges. (See below; I have given the diffs. related to what I am talking about) The one relating to there being any "collusion" is utterly without foundation and just about everyone else but Orderinchaos recognizes that. --NYScholar (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I have read this and I understand your concerns. I will be working today to put together a list of issues, with diffs, so you can have a clear indication of what issues need to be addressed. Please bear with me as its going to take a bit of time to get this together. Shell ^babelfish 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some conclusions and remaining concerns re: the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I

In my own viewpoint on the matter, I still don't believe that the AN/I was proper, appropriate, or even correct to file or properly conducted throughout:

The filer of it (Orderinchaos) never made any attempt to discuss those unsubstantiated impressions with me or Ecoleetage first, simply filing an AN/I w/o doing so and thus not even following the instructions of the AN/I.
When I brought this to the attention of people there, Orderinchaos did not at any time throughout or ultimately take responsibility for that, but at one point claims that the AN/I is not about me but about a "community" process being breached by Ecoleetage (one that actually does not exist and was not even part of the blocking administrator's instructions to either him or to me; there was no time period required by John Carter's decision; with the trust that Sarah mentions and the assumption of good faith, JC left it up to Ecoleetage to determine what was needed throughout the course of the adoption.
Using Ecoleetage's own talk-page as a model, I immediately decided to post a conciliatory message with a "smile" template on Sarah's talk page (July 16, 2008)--I posted the "diffs." to it in the Sept. 5 AN/I (that is an indication of my immediate response as an adoptee/mentee).
Apparently, Orderinchaos and others (some posting much later and perhaps not seeing my links to the archive page 21 and 22) did not go back to my archived talk page 21 to read what John Carter said to me; to read his clarifying to my questions that his conclusion did not require me to archive my talk page in any specific manner (not a "requirement" of the "indefinite block" etc.); but that he required me only to accept an offer of adoption when it occurred.
I myself volunteered to add the archiving bot to help in archiving my talk page initially because I had not understood JC's conclusion and thought it a requirement that I archive within 96 hours/4 days--as some had said in their discussions prior to JC's closing/conclusion (but they had not prevailed with him in the end). That is all discussed between us in the archived talk page 21. I posted some additional questions that JC never came back to reply to; but that was okay w/ me, as I understood basically what he expected me to do (be adopted).
After examining various bots on user talk pages and their archiving duration, I decided (voluntarily) to use the current one, after having it suggested to me by another administrator who kindly stepped up to help w/ developing one for this talk page (exchange now in archive page 21);
Since people posting in the Sept. 5 AN/I had moved away from the actual initial comments, led by Sarah to focus on the past AN/I, which she kept alluding to and telling people to consider, the comments on the Sept. 5 AN/I kept getting farther and farther from what Orderinchaos actually states initially.
Ecoleetage, I, and Keeper in our comments tried to comment on the actual matter at hand, pertaining to what Orderinchaos had initiated, explaining that his/her assumptions were entirely baseless.
The links Orderinchaos provides in the initial post(s) do not go to "diffs." They go to whole pages. Oic interpreted a talk page situation incorrectly, using it as an "example" that I removed things in "hyperediting" my own user talk page, and claiming that I was deleting other users' complaints from my talk page, but that is actually not what I did. The main thing OiC pointed to there is actually (as I stated in a response to that charge) a moving of a comment wholly intact from my talk page to an article talk page--where it pertains and where other editors of the article would see it (instead of it remaining lost to them by virtue of its being on my talk page, where they might not and probably would not see it).
The comment moved actually relates to a See also item in the article on Heath Ledger (via discussions in now-archived material in Talk:Heath Ledger--the article re: which Keeper later praised my work. The thing had to do with a list of academy award winners' ages in relation to whether or not Ledger would be the youngest man to be nominated for and/or to win the best actor award posthumously if he were nominated and/or to win it posthumously (he would not be; there were discrepancies in the charts that needed to be fixed and that is what the discussion was about)
The link in the Ledger article had led me to the other article, which I began working on to try to document it with sources better; it took days to do that work; I hardly ignored the comment by the user; I followed it up. No one checked the later communications on the other user and article talk pages to see that I discussed it further with that editor in working on improving the documentation ("sourcing") of the article that that person had created.
I clearly state in the "N.B." above that if comments should have been placed or are better placed on an article page, instead of my current talk page, I copy and move them there. That is not the same as deleting them, which OiC was complaining that I did. My editing history directs the user who posted the comment to the fact that I was moving it to an article talk page.
Other people, jumping on the bandwagon, including Sarah, then said then jumped in to rehash "behavior" that they said was the same as before--well, that's not the case at all; first of all, no such deletion per se occurred w/ that "example" that OinC gave at the start; and secondly, I had actually informed the person who posted it in the editing summary that I was moving it to the relevant article talk page, where the discussion continues. Apparently, no one looked at the "diffs." (previous and next edits to see that) and not everone was reading my explanation because some (perhaps several) stated that it was "too long" and that they couldn't be bothered to read it.
Later people continually accuse me of editing in bad faith, of commenting in bad faith, etc.; however, in my view, it is a violation of WP:AGF for them to make those comments, especially when their assumptions were actually repeatedly pointed out to be wrong. They were wrong, they still are wrong, and just my saying that they made a mistake (mistaken statements=wrong) does not make me a violator of WP:AGF. I know that they are wrong, because the "diffs." (accessible right from the linked page that OiC initially provided) show them to be mistaken unequivocally. [I don't see that kind of edit as so-called "hyperediting" at all either.]
Later people state that I was required to archive my talk page a certain way or with a bot as a requirement or condition of the previous block by John Carter; but that is false also; my archive page 21 shows the discussion where he explicitly corrects my thinking I had to do that to tell me I did not. The choice of using an archiving bot was my own choice (voluntary) based on suggestions people made that I decided are a good idea.
ThuranX claims (more than once despite being corrected--he would not read my comments and ignored the correction) that I "reluctantly" agreed to being adopted by Ecoleetage in the first place; archive page 21 shows the discussion that I had with both John Carter and Ecoleetage; the reason the "indefinite block" lasted less than a day (less than 24 hrs.) is because I readily and immediately accepted Ecoleetage's offer (the same day he offered it).
I even summarized for Ecoleetage my own understanding of the past incident complaints (Shell: it is in archive 21--so I don't have to do it again; I know what they are), gave him an opportunity to withdraw if he thought the task of adopting me too challenging, he said he did not find it too much of a challenge, and we finalized the adoption; Ecoleetage communicated directly with John Carter, placed the updated adopt-a-user template on my talk page, and, with some delays due to problems unblocking my IP as well, they eventually unblocked my user account so that I could communicate with them and also put the archiving bot on my talk page and contact someone to help me w/ it, which I did. That discussion is also in archive page 21. I believe that some of those making statements about what happened have not read that documented account of what actually did happen.
In the now closed Sept. 5 AN/I, there remain comments left by others that are still incorrect and not corrected. There are still faulty assumptions made about past events not borne out by actual "diffs." and also not consistent with the record in my own archived talk pages.
There are still no "diffs." posted there pointing to anything specific in my editing from between July 15, 2008 and Sept. 5, 2008 (the filing of the AN/I by OiC) to substantiate the claims that "the same problems as before" were still happening then;
The main continuing complaint that Sarah kept repeating there is that I was not "concise"; well, I think it should be obvious that with that many confused notions occurring it takes a fair number of words to explain what's wrong with the confused notions.
If the people posting there had actually consulted the "diffs." (not just the webpage/version) of my talk page, they would have seen that what OiC was claiming was untrue; and if they actually had read the explanations of the false assumptions made by OiC about (a) Ecoleetage's need to notify John Carter of his decision to cancel my adoption; (b) the requirements of JC's conclusion; and (c) the requirements of any AN/I (at top of project page) they would have seen their own mistakes;
I submit that all of this could have been avoided if Orderinchaos had simply followed the actual procedure in the instructions; communicated his/her concerns (assumptions) to Ecoleetage and me directly before filing the notice and certainly notified me that the notice existed as a courtesy as per the instructions. He only notified Ecoleetage, not me, while calling the notice "NYScholar issues revisited": how could that not focus on "my behavior"; I was actually almost "blocked" or "banned" on the basis of all those unfounded complaints about my supposed "behavior".
My comments in the talk pages of the images exist only because there were then at least ongoing problems in the ways 2 images were being uploaded and described in image pages by one uploader (at the time; another one came along to re-upload them to Wikipedia Commons). If anyone would actually look at the current image pages for those images, one will see that my persistance (although it annoyed people that I persisted) has resulted in corrections made to the image pages of both images by others and even the re-uploading of a more-cropped version of one of the images to meet Wikipedia media policy. If I had not persisted (even though it took a lot of talk page discussing on various image-review related pages), no one would have corrected those problems.
The unsubstantiated charges of this amorphous practice some call "hyperediting"--the "example" by OiC actually is not any example of that at all; it goes to a "moved" and intact discussion not a deleted one--did not occur as OiC and Sarah and the others seem to think and repeatedly suggest it did (that is what I call a "false accusation," and I did explain in my comments that they apparently did not read how the editing history of that "example" shows what actually occurred);
My corrections of typographical errors in my own talk page, other talk pages (whether article or image pages) is my practice so as to avoid leaving confusing posts; if I see an error in my own writing in what is saved even after using "show preview", I come back to correct it so that it will not confuse others then or later.
As a result of their sensitivity to such corrections, I have let some typographical errors remain in the Sept. 5 AN/I (they are relatively minor); I would prefer that such archived discussions not contain errors, but minor ones are tolerable;
The result of their complaints is that they make me very nervous about editing anything in Wikipedia--articles, my own comments in talk pages, my own comment here in my own talk page, image talk pages, reviews of images on project review pages, and so on.
I don't think that I should have to feel so constricted and restricted by an improperly-filed AN/I report filled with so many false assumptions.
Of course, I understand the past AN/I: it's fully documented in and via links to it in my own archive talk pages. But I can also distinguish between accurate comments about it and inaccurate ones. Sarah constantly sums up the past situation as if it's entirely cut and dried and indisputable; it was not; many people disagreed with one another there too; if they had not, John Carter would not have reached the closing decision that he reached.
A current problem is that the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I has no "summary" (it says it has but it does not; there is no "closing decision" stated at the top of it--at least there wasn't when I started writing this humungous non-concise comment). The administrator who closed it may need to state the conclusion. No action was taken by any one in closing it; I took the action myself, volunteered to be adopted and have been adopted. My action has resulted in resolving that matter.
On the basis still of all the still-unsupported claims about my July 15 to September 5 "behavior" Sarah now claims that she would recommend a "ban" of me from Wikipedia based on that current AN/I if "it" (that "behavior") ever happens in the future. The problem is that the so-called behavior did not occur as OiC states. (I do understand that she does not want to see a recurrence of what I was actually blocked for in the earlier AN/I (although I have already gone on record about the remaining unresolved unfair aspects of that one too--see archive page 21, where I summarize them in a comment to John Carter; he says that he lost his reply and does not respond in detail; but I think the matter is clearly set forth there in summary).
How is Sarah's last post a valid conclusion by anyone who has actually examined what Ecoleetage, Keeper, others, and I state about the Sept. 5 AN/I filed by OiC?
All three of us (who were involved in commenting independently in a deletion request that failed re: Czeslawa Kwoka [omitting the accent in the l here] object to and attempt to correct the false assumptions made by OinC and others relying solely on their memory and not examining the actual edits that I (and Ecoleetage) have made in that period?
It really appears to us that Orderinchaos jumped on some comments made among editors (which were all wholly benign attempts to improve Wikipedia) and interpreted them with suspicions that are not at all warranted, assuming causes and effects that are entirely inaccurate and that are really just false interpretations based on suspicions about some kind of attempt to avoid adoption that did not occur and using claims about the blocking administrator's arrangement that are untrue and do not have any basis in the resolution of a "community-imposed sanction"; the blocking administrator set the rules and Ecoleetage and I followed them; the rules did not include notifying him or the "community" (which OiC interprets somehow as everyone involved in the past AN/I, a notification procedure that does not exist in relation to blocks and adoptions).
Moreover, when I refer to being the subject of "retribution" by Orderinchaos (initially) and then Sarah, ThuranX, Wikidemo, and even the others jumping on the same bandwagon who were all commenters in the previous AN/I (members of that "community", not "the community" [all of Wikipedia]), I am referring to the effects of their apparent anger that they were not consulted when Ecoleetage notified me that he canceled his adoption of me (Aug. 5, 2008). We become the butts of that anger; that is what makes Orderinchaos's AN/I naming me appear to be vindictive (not the RfA from which Ecoleetage withdrew his name--even after getting over 70 support votes, though, since Orderinchaos even linked to my comment in it as some kind of alleged proof that I was somehow allegedly in "collusion" with Ecoleetage, that is certainly how it looked to both Ecoleetage, Keeper, and me, all of whom had supported E's nomination (by another editor).
One can see why I initially told Ecoleetage that I would prefer his not alluding to the circumstances of his adopting me in mid July 2008; these administrative actions in Wikipedia go far astray, degenerate into unsourced accusations and general complaints stated without "diffs." to back them up, and become basically free-for-all attacks against other Wikipedia editors--That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette and usually violates WP:CIVIL.
I am not comfortable with Sarah's remarks remaining as the "last word" in the AN/I. It still strikes me as patently unfair in light of what I and others have also said (and what I am reiterating here. Her concluding remarks still are based on faulty assumptions re: Orderinchaos' actually untrue allegations. She emphasizes my lack of conciseness. That is not a blockable offense and certainly not a banable one in Wikipedia, according to WP:POL, which includes talk page guidelines (article, user, and images, etc.) as well as policies. It assumes that I am not posting my remarks in good faith; however I am posting my remarks in good faith, and, despite their length, I expect them to be read (taken) as posted in good faith (that is, I expect people who engage and participate in AN/I (especially administrators) to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and Wikipedia:Etiquette.
I am doing that, I have done that, and I expect the same courtesies from these others. They are still Wikipedia users, whether or not they are administrators; and they are still subject to all WP:POL, just as I am.
The AN/I needs an appropriate closing conclusion at the top that is in keeping with the facts and not the false assumptions.
My pointing out these things is not in any way a claim of "bad faith" against Sarah or some others (I do question the "good faith" of those who refuse to read what I wrote because it is "too long" etc.).
My pointing out these things is simply a statement that I (and others) believe that they have made a lot of mistakes in their statements that the facts that existed between July 15 and September 5, 2008 do not bear out.
Saying that my comments here or my comments in the AN/I are "back to the same old tricks" simply because they take a lot of space is not a reason to call for a future "ban" of someone.
I cannot [continue to] edit here under such circumstances.
Until someone straightens this out, it would be foolish of me to do so. [I just added some dev. w/ source citation to an article, having already forgotten that I said this: goes to current still-tired state of mind.... Something pops up on watchlist and I'm off to edit things. (ed. [NYS])]
I need to be as free as anyone else to work here.
I need to know that if I am not "concise enough" for some that does not subject me to a "community ban".
In other Wikipedia space (article talk pages, other user talk pages, project page talk pages, image talk pages, image review talk pages [if I ever comment in them again], I will strive to be more concise; one has to keep in mind that even some of them are not people of few words and that "concise" is a rather relative and subjective term. It may need to be further defined. I'll see if I can find a definition of "concise" somewhere in WP:POL.
Please do not tell me that this comment is not "concise"; I already know that. I've numbered the items. Within each item, I am relatively concise.
The past AN/I was, in my view, a mess. I have tried to explain why I think it was above.
The next time that I am in danger of becoming a subject of anything in any such incident report or complaint, I hope that the potential filer or maker will be courteous enough to consult with me first to see if any possible misassumptions might be straightened out through discussion; then, if it is filed, I hope that the filer will be courteous enough to notify me of that fact on my current talk page.
Shell has asked that that procedure be followed to a degree by asking that the potential filer contact her or me; I would like the potential filer to contact both of us; especially, to discuss the matter of concern with me first and to notify her as well if she is still at that time my adopter/mentor. Doing so will be helpful to her and me in improving my communications with other Wikipedians about Wikipedia.
If anyone has made it to the end of this non-"rant" and non-"screed" (in my view), I thank him and/or her for having taken their time and energy to read it.
If anyone has any doubt about my posting this section in good faith: Let me assure everyone that I am indeed posting this in good faith, and that I intend only good faith in posting it. I do not direct any incivilities toward anyone, I am being honest and forthright, I am being sincere, and I am not assuming anyone's intended acts of "bad faith" against me or Ecoleetage; I believe that they acted out of anger or other negative emotions, and that they misinterpreted the record based on those emotions.

Finally, thanks to everyone who has taken the time and energy to read the above comments. Again, they are simply my overall perspective on the nature and conduct of that AN/I. I do not feel that the posting of material in AN/I permits breaches of WP:CIVIL and of Wikipedia:Etiquette by any of us. I did not intend any. I do not view lack of conciseness as a breach of those guidelines, although other people apparently do. I'm just trying to make clear how I regard the situation, so that other people will understand it. If people continue to say "oh, look, NYS just proved that we were right again," that's their prerogative. I find such responses to be immature and insensitive to what I am actually trying to communicate about the way these processes malfunction in Wikipedia to the detriment of the larger "community." --NYScholar (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In relation to #11 above: here is a link to the comment that I placed on the user's talk page re: the moved item: User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro#Update re: List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees.

I'll see if I can find the "diffs." re: the moving of the comment that he placed on my talk page; if I'm misremembering anything, I'll try to correct the record re: it via my editing history of my own current talk page. And I'll check my archive. --NYScholar (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The initial passage is still here in these Diffs. and apparently not removed by me; the automatic archive bot was employed (as now) to archive my talk page after 2 days/48 hours and after 2 diff. time/date stamps and it would have happened later and often the material would be archived chronologically out of order, because that's the way the bot functions.

I'll find the archive page of that period and see if I can trace what occurred; nevertheless, I was in communication with the person who posted the comment via his own talk page.

Joseph A. Spadaro and I were still discussing his comments of this time period in my talk page several posts later; one has to scroll through the diffs. to find them; e.g.: Diffs.. Nothing I did to the page results in justifying what Orderinchaos claims in the initial example posted in the AN/I as so-called proof of my "hyperediting"; the bot archived things itself. If I find typographical errors in my own edits in my own talk page, I fix them, as is my prerogative and following how I maintain this talk page as per N.B. above. I'll continue to do that, but still try to do so in a clearly transparent manner; I give editing summaries that explain my edits, and I use "tc" (as explained in "N.B.") for "typographical corrections." --NYScholar (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Once he got into angry diatribe like "What on God's green earth are you talking about?", I moved the discussion about the matter affecting the article as stated here and the editing summary states that; that is not a deletion, it's a moving of the material to a more pertinent location (see #10, 11 again above), which I explained in the AN/I already, and I communicated with him about the matter further, expressing appreciation for his hard work (as diffs. linked above show) as well; I didn't ignore this user, I responded to him appropriately re: concern for the accuracy of the sources of the article (which I actually provided in it/current version of article in question): diffs.. This whole exchange, which occurred over the days shown, and which occurred in the period July 15 to September 5, 2008, does not in any way support Orderinchaos's claim about it (which suggests that I deleted and ignored this person via "hyperediting" of my talk page), but it shows the opposite; yet Sarah reiterates the false claim without checking to see if it was accurate, and takes me to task for something that I did not do that she says is the same "behavior" as a past AN/I, which is absolutely not the case, as my posting on the user's talk page documents. --NYScholar (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The moved exchange initially posted on my talk page by Spadaro, is incorporated intact in a longer section of then-ongoing discussion which preceded his posting on my talk page: Talk:List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees#Lack of source citations to document content here. I think that the whole exchange shows that I was acting as a responsible editor in Wikipedia and not at all as Orderinchaos and others state in that Sept. 5 AN/I. I think that most Wikipedia editors would agree that the article in question (linked via Heath Ledger is quite notable and it is important that it be well documented (well sourced). --NYScholar (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Portraitist, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim (☎) 19:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. --NYScholar (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder

I wonder if Orderinchaos's posting of the AN/I was triggered by the post at the top of my new archive page 23, from Ecoleetage, dated September 5, 2008. In retrospect, I have also wondered if Eco's post could be a boilerplate item that he was sending to more people than just me, as a courtesy to thank them for their support of him in his RfA. Aside from the barnstar from Keeper, I really have not interacted with perhaps any or at least most of the people who added posts of any kind to Ecoleetage's RfA (strong support, support, neutral, opposed, or comments); there were scores of posts there, I noticed for the first time when I (again independently) went over to post my own support comment and to wish him luck; I based my support on only refs. to what I experienced as an adoptee/mentee, not on what others were saying above or below me). When I posted it there were fewer than five people opposing his nomination and over 70 supporting it. At that time, I thought that he would probably be approved; but later there were difficulties, people seemed to become strident, and he withdrew, as he announced to me on Sept. 5th; I had already noticed that via my watchlist. I have a default selection where any page I visit in Wik. shows up on my watchlist unless I delete it (opp. for Wik. Commons).

Between Ecoleetage's posting in my talk page a request (see archive 22) some days earlier and the canceling of the adoption, which occurred a whole month earlier on August 5, 2008, the only contact he and I had had on my own talk page is fully archived in archive page 22; I would occasionally respond to his brief "hey there" time messages on my talk page, giving him a thank you or a heads up, perhaps relating to the two or three articles I worked on independently that he had drawn my attention to in late August. I did much more work on them than he did; it seemed to me that I took over mostly where he had left off, and provided source citations to improve the articles.

For some reason (perhaps a watchlist), on Sept. 5, 2008, the same date as the AN/I that Orderinchaos posted, Orderinchaos noticed that post on my talk page from Ecoleetage re: the RfA (a month after the cancellation of the adoption [Aug. 5]). I don't know why Oic didn't notice the cancellation itself in August. Maybe I was not on his watchlist at all. After noticing it the actually-entirely benign courtesy thank-you message from Ecoleetage to me, his former adoptee/mentee, it now appears that Orderinchaos took off on some kind of goose chase (or witch hunt) leading to falsely assuming and then falsing accusing both Ecoleetage and me of some kind of "collusion"; it appears that Orderinchaos checked both my and Ecoleeteage's various contributions, seeking purported correspondences or connections and wholly misconstruing coincidences of our both being willing to try to improve the Kwoka article subject to a deletion request entirely as "collusion", which, most emphatically again, it was not.

That kind of activity--related to but not Wikistalking, which can lead (perhaps inadvertently) to harassment--is frowned on in Wikipedia; it leads to the filing of assumed or perceived or alleged grievances based purely on guesswork and on no prior consultation with the actual editors involved (Ecoleetage and me). It may have been curiosity and not ill intended at all on the part of Orderinchaos, of course; but the results have caused much pain and grief for both Ecoleetage and me, not to mention all those other people who had to take their time to read and/or post comments in the AN/I filed on the same day, September 5, 2008. The filing on the same day suggests to me a kind of knee jerk reaction and a sort of "hysterical reaction" that far outweighs the claim that I have been "hysterical" (as Sarah states it) in the RfA filed by Orderinchaos. (Every time I type that log-in identity, I wonder: What is its significance; does the editor specialize in making "order" out of "chaos" in Wikipedia, or is it sometimes the other way round? (Somewhat joking; that AN/I really resulted in chaos for me and others.)

The apparently-ill-considered and apparently-hasty decision to post the AN/I without first contacting both me and Ecoleetage and perhaps John Carter who signed off to link us in the adopt-a-user process really suggests that one needs to do more consulting with others before posting such notices in AN/I. The process needs some kind of preliminary filter, I think, to make sure that what gets posted there is done properly and accurately; just as in templates for reviews in "non-free use" and "fair use" review and other such project pages re: content in Wikipedia. All these "charges" that these people post wily-nily, without any supervision and without any moderator, or any template requiring "diffs." for each claim made, really runs counter to other content policies in Wikipedia, including WP:BLP, and can indeed lead to slander of actual living people (us) and our reputations in Wikipedia and outside of Wikipedia, given the free-licenses throughout the world. In part, due to that, I post my comments and responses here, for the record. Lots of this material is imported wholesale all over the internet. Misstatements really need to be challenged and corrected. Otherwise they go unanswered and appear to be true when they are not true. --NYScholar (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good example of one of the behaviors that you need to stop, immediately. While I understand that any time your behavior is called in to question, it makes one feel defensive, it is never acceptable to assume bad faith of the person making the report and far, far beyond the pale to then attack them. There was nothing ill-considered or hasty about Orderinchaos's post, nor do I believe that any of the information was inaccurate. You even went further to accuse him of stalking and harassment which frankly, is ridiculous - I'd strongly suggest that you retract the majority of this statement as quickly as possible (and honestly, many others like it on the AN/I thread).

I agree that if possible, one should use a talk page to work out differences, your situation is such that this has been tried repeatedly to the point of an indefinite block being issued. You were given a final chance in the form of a mentorship which was dissolved without resolving the issues at hand. You may not like it, but it was perfectly reasonable for Orderinchaos to skip trying to talk with you (since this hasn't worked before) and start another community discussion over how to handle the apparent failure of mentorship.

So, the next time you encounter a discussion where you feel another editor is attacking or harassing you, please take the time to go do something else for a bit. When you come back to the discussion, consider the statement again and find a way to take what was said so that it would not be an attack. Respond calmly and ask for clarification if needed. Above all, you must find a way to state your concerns without attacking anyone else involved in the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I go out of my way above to say that I do not assume "bad faith" on another editor, e.g, Orderinchaos. I think s/he made an inadvertent mistake based on inadvertent faulty assumptions. I've said that. I am calm. I wrote that in calm retrospect. I really do wonder whether Orderinchaos got so upset at seeing the September 5th message to me and realizing that Ecoleetage had canceled the adoption, as at the time (Aug. 5) was his decision based on my "conduct" and "editing" at that time, that Orderinchaos went off to find evidence to support his inadvertently-false assumptions about "collusion" etc. It just didn't happen the way Orderinchaos apparently (still?) thinks, and he holds to these misapprehensions of the situation. As Ecoleetage states most emphatically and honestly, there were no additional conditions made upon him and me re: the adoption. It was just an adoption, and John Carter never returned to answer my questions in my talk page, which were about archiving, not adoption. Maybe the adoption needed monitoring (as might yours and mine now--though you, unlike Ecoleetage are an administrator and much more experienced, which is why I requested you as an adopter; I need the level of experience), but Ecoleetage and I were not given that condition. I don't see how Orderinchaos can blame this situation on either of us. All of us have edited in good faith; there have just been unfortunate mistakes made--I think by one and all, not just Ecoleetage and me (as people claim). --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) So you are saying that the "final chance" situation derives from the block made by John Carter? There were no such words as part of his closing statement: I just placed the archive link, with the link to the first AN/I above. Perhaps I have forgotten something, but I don't recall that. I'm not saying that this should not be my "final chance" etc. I'm just saying I want to understand precisely what I am being asked not to do, because the "example" given by Orderinchaos (links, not actual diffs., and mistaken notions of them anyway) is simply not an example of anything I did wrong. Please follow the link to the talk pages re: #10/11 above. There's a mistake there in his understanding of what occurred (completely) I believe. I've documented it fully here. So if it's not that, what is it that I did wrong between July 15 and Sept. 5, 2008 that I am not supposed to repeat. I need to know to avoid doing that. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article The Portraitist, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks. The bold belongs around Wilhelm Brasse, not the film. See editing summ. there. Scroll up to earlier notification of earlier DYK to me that led me to go to the link in it and add one; I created and expanded both articles over a period from Aug. 28 (or so) until today. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean this edit summary]? It's near the top of the page, so I can't scroll up. Anyway, Wilhelm Brasse was indeed created on August 28, which was 12 days ago. Wikipedia:Did You Know#Selection criteria says "A nominated article must be new ... no more than five days old" (which is often stretched, but not stretched to 12 days). Art LaPella (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. I was referring to the fact that I went to the DYK Sept. 9 entry (last item among entries there) and added bold (/) to the entry. That edit is just coincidental; the article was on my watch list and 2 anon. IP users had introduced QP errors in it; it had been correctly punctuated before their edits and I had to fix them.

Re: your point about when the article was created; the list heading says "created/expanded"; the editing history shows both when it was created and when it was expanded; it has been expanded considerably since August 28 through recently. In its current state is less than 5 days old. I have no knowledge of how DYK works; that's the first entry I ever listed there. I only noticed DYK as a feature about a week ago; I rarely go to the main page of Wikipedia. I wonder what the procedure is pertaining to "expanded" articles? It's newish. Please examine the full editing history re: dates of expanding. It is not that important to me whether or not it's listed in DYK; I only went to DYK as reciprocal gesture due to earlier posting here of a notice of DYK to me. I left it up to others to decide what to do w/ it; I really don't want to do any more than just to nominate it there; what is decided by DYK editors is fine w/ me. No need to comment here about that anymore; later I'll just go to DYK directly and look at the entries. Thanks for your efforts thus far. --NYScholar (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I should explain the expansion rule here (as it's already in the Template talk:Did you know#Instructions rules over there). Did You Know uses new articles, defined as 5 days old. "In its current state" doesn't matter (otherwise a spelling correction would make the article "new"). Expanded articles aren't considered "new" unless they were expanded fivefold in the last 5 days. More details are at Wikipedia:Did you know#The DYK Rules and Template talk:Did you know#Instructions. Art LaPella (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these explanations and links. [Wow: I didn't even see "Instructions" in that table of contents last times I was on that page; just noticed the date-linked articles! Aha! --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

(Cont. of above comment) In the future, I'll know where to look for the "instructions"; I had trouble navigating the DYK area. Given that, it would have been better not to post the entry at all. It would be fine with me if you or someone else just deleted it entirely or struck it out. It doesn't match that situation. The link provided for me in the DYK post (scroll up) just led to a main page spot for DYK; I had no idea where to go after that, hit a link, which went to a spot that suggested one adds entries in a format like the last one posted, and I just posted it in the same format. Some other day I'll read the linked instructions and rules; but ... :) not today and probably not very soon! Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Your explanation on the DYK page explains it. Art LaPella (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to debate the AN/I reportI

I noticed that you've just left a message for Gnangarra [2]. You seem to be fond of making lists of things you believe were incorrect; I'm not sure if you realize that these lists come off rather poorly and make it appear that you're trying to place blame for the situation on other editors. In addition, there are a number of your statements that are incorrect, for example Gnangarra made two comments - one earlier in the middle that you noticed, but also one when closing the report [3] - for some strange reason, that comment is not showing up, but it does indicate that the report is being closed because we're going to give mentorship a try.

In regards to the large N.B. section above, I believe that there have been several complaints about particular comments:

"I archive them when I feel discussions are over and/or when I have no further time to participate in them." - this is one of the statements that is frequently mentioned. This statement makes other editors feel very unwelcome and gives the impression that you feel your time is more valuable than that of other editors, since you make decisions to when a discussion is "done". I would like to see you remove this entirely.

"Due to my own other priorities (related to my own professional work and travel schedule), I am turning back to focusing on my own non-Wikipedia related work. Thanks very much to those who do understand for understanding. I appreciate your compassion." and "Since first posting this, I have attempted to make some corrections to and to update a few articles that I have worked hard on recently, but I really do need to focus on my own work in order to get it done on schedule. I have to go offline to do it. For extended periods of time, I will not be logging back into Wikipedia." - These statements give many editors the impression that you no longer visit/edit Wikipedia and may discourage them from posting on your talk page. Clearly, you are active on Wikipedia (being inactive literally means not being here at all) so these statements are very misleading. I would like to see you remove them; since you already have a statement indicating you may be busy in real life and not respond quickly, that should be sufficient. Shell ^babelfish 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done NYScholar (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well of course if the conclusion doesn't show up, I don't know what it is. I'll look for your link in a moment. I don't know why there is a problem with my "N.B." statement; I review what you said after I respond, so you know I've seen this, but I have still no idea what the closing administrator concluded; he or she really makes crucial mistatements about the matter that I've pointed out. Re: use of numbers, I just followed format that other people use. It never turns me off; it makes it easier to read the comments. But each to his or her own, I guess. I'll consider what you say carefully; I have to have some dinner, etc., so I don't know when I will be back to reply again. But eventually I will get back. Thanks for you assistance; I linked to my first reply to Ecoleetage in archive 21 re: the challenge, because I knew that you needed to read that I understand that mentoring me will be a challenge; it was in July and apparently is in September, but I have learned something in the intervening months; I just need to ponder how I am going to apply whatever it is you are directing me that I need to do. Hope you understand what I mean. --NYScholar (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick acknowledgment; the closing admin's statement did not show up; that's initially why I went to his talk page to alert him of that. I had actually composed a somewhat brief notice of the problem, but (1) it got lost by some editing/computer glitch; I looked again for a conclusion, couldn't find it, re-read his in-body statements (that had crucial mistakes in it based on other people's unfounded claims about archiving and the original Ecoleetage adoption, not on archive 21's record of John Carter's directions to me), and realized it needed more correction. This is the first time I've seen a conclusion that shows up. I'll read it again later, but I want you to know I've seen it; I still have to read and re-read what you've written above. I hope that you're not upset with me; I have found and am still findin this whole experience initiated by ... on Sept. 5, 2008, extremely upsetting, unduly time-consuming, and unnecessarily stress-producing for one and all. I think the AN/I process needs revamping and safeguards against this kind of thing ever happening again. Thanks. I'll be back in touch another time. --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When I am away from Wikipedia the portions of the "N.B." relating to that will probably remain; when I am actively editing Wikipedia (which won't be for much longer I hope this week), I will use < ! -- / -- > to edit the portions that don't apply out.

Done [--NYScholar (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)]

(Cont. of above.) The talk page related things are really important to me for people, espec, anon. IP users and new users, to see; I really can't handle being bombarded by vandals or gratuitous comments in my talk page. I haven't and don't want to take time for that. Take a look at the talk page of some the others involved; can't remember who right now but one's is more restrictive than mine. Ecoleetage has up until recently deleted whatever he wanted to delete from his talk page; Poeticbent reverts "undoes" immediately every warning I've posted the moment s/he sees it. I ignored that and just accepted their practices, as they do not violate Wikipedia user talk page or W. user page (user space) guidelines. I've studied the guidelines before, and linked to the project pages for the benefit of new users. Experienced users can cope. There is allowed wide license in Wikipedia guidelines for how people construct and maintain user talk pages; I think mine's really okay, but I can use "edit out" and back in as needed; I've done it in the past. --NYScholar (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --NYScholar (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate you making an effort on this :) Shell ^babelfish 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Shell. Due to problems just encountered today re: comments re: premature archiving of this page by bot or otherwise I know not how or why, I've edited back in some of the "N.B."; I hope to be doing non-Wikipedia work and other things, and that part pertains again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

request

NYS I've deliberately waited until the recent AN/I discussion was archived. There was a comment you posted that really concerned me in it you made accusations about another editor being inhumane[4] precisely you said ...has been now and in the past one of the reasons why I do not feel well; the continuing attacks, the unfairness of them, the lack of humane compassion, and the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both...-NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC) . At the time these comments should have resulted in a block as they are a personal attack. What I request is that you go to the archive and remove the comment leaving a [comment retracted] in its place. Its probable that this editor uses her RL name unlike many of us, to leave such a comment in place is harmful, it would also go a long way to taking the tension out of future discussions with the editor. Gnan garra 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from wrongly-placed material in wrongly-created archive page 25. I almost didn't see it at all; I left the wrongly-archived comment where it is so whoever can help fix this archiving problem will see it and so that Gnan understands that there is some problem in placing it in an archive page instead of on my current archive page (i.e., here, where I have placed it. Please see archive pages 24 and 25; they need to be deleted and archiving needs to be continuing in archive page 23, which I thought Shell's fixing the bot created. There should not be blue-linked archive pages 24 and 25 yet; if there at all, they would be empty and red-linked. --NYScholar (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

You are free to edit it out if you wish. [That is: using "< ! --/ -->". However:] There are many comments made about me in the archived AN/I that I feel are harmful [to] me. I have a real-life identity too, and such comments that these other users were making about me throughout that AN/I and the previous one too are slanderous in my view. I stated that many times in various ways, to no avail. [Added bold typefont in 1st line referred to in my unblock request, so that it is more visible. --NYScholar (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]

The situation that I refer to in my requests for "compassion" to [these other users, including the one that you refer to] is already archived in detail, where the discussion between that particular user is already in my already-previously archived pages (archived by the bot): around archive page 21 (based on material already archived in previous archive pages; there is a link to my requests for the user to desist in the onslaught of comments about the previous AN/I in my then current talk page (also archived). The whole previous AN/I is archived as well.

I made no "personal attack" against that user; my comments were about my concerns about being constantly attacked myself. I had already many times expressed my distress at being required to spend so much time on Wikipedia defending myself against what I considered and still consider to be unfounded and unwarranted and false accusations, claims, and statements by others (from the beginning of the past AN/I through the end of the Sept. 5 one).

I had and have a right to defend myself and the integrity of my editing in Wikipedia (I also am a real person) against such continual onslaughts; to do so is not be "defensive"; it is replying to set the record straight.

To "block" me for what I commented there in my own "defense" against such an onslaught of attacks by others is to engage in retroactive and punitive blocks, which violates Wikipedia's own blocking policy. I think that you need to visit the link (already provided in the more recent AN/I to my own conciliatory comments on that user's page on July 16, 2008 (the user archived it later in her archive page 17).

In the more recent AN/I I express my shock at the reemergence of the user (an administrator) in the more recent AN/I and her continual urging that others return to the past and resolved AN/I (based on an earlier entirely misconstrued situation from well before that), because it seemed exactly the opposite of the way we had left the previous matter. A regurgitation of the same previous AN/I continued throughout the more recent, now-archived AN/I despite my requests throughout it for them to desist, despite my pointing to the July 16th gesture on my part, and despite my stating how tired I was and how I needed to be offline due to a terrible headache from reading the material in the AN/I online and not feeling well due to the AN/I onslaught. I still believe that the more recent-now-archived AN/I is a dysfunctional feature of Wikipedia administration. It needs to be reviewed by a set of external reviewers. --NYScholar (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[clarifications made and added bracketed Wiki. code for "editorial interpolations/changes". I will edit back into my "N.B." above the part relating to compassion; it was there from before July 2008 through about a day ago. --NYScholar (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC); (updated) --NYScholar (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

Any such "external reviewers" of these past AN/I situations need to be neutral reviewers who were not themselves users who were involved in participating in commenting in the past AN/I situations. Anyone who was a party to the previous ones (party included in the vague phrase "and others") and/or a commenter in them is not "neutral" and "uninvolved" [as some of those adding comments seem to claim]. Please note that it was I who initiated the July 2008 AN/I about another user's behavior and it was the administrator to whom you refer above (who was a participatnt in the July 2008 AN/I) who changed the heading to feature my log-in identity and who redirected it against me, calling for me to be "sanctioned" and leading to discussions of "banning" me from Wikipedia and the eventual "indefinite block" with a single condition of acceptance of "adoption", which I accepted and entered into immediately. The Sept. 5 AN/I contains distortions of the actual conditions. No requirement of archiving was actually made by User:John Carter, the "blocking" and "closing" administrator (see record of July 15, 2008 in archive page 21, with link to that July AN/I). The generalizations made throughout the September 5, 2008 AN/I are most often made without links to "diffs." and undocumented false accusations, not backed up by the record (see my numbered items above, with "diffs."). This AN/I process is dysfunctional (a "mess"), as I have already stated. It is doing great damage to individual Wikipedia users who become its target; damage to "the Wikipedia community" (the larger "community"), and damage to the image of Wikipedia throughout the world (in many languages). The AN/I process itself needs a thorough review. It itself violates WP:POL, especially WP:V, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Etiquette, and WP:CIVIL. Extensive use of uncivil language and behavior by administrators and others appears tolerated in that process. Until its problems are corrected, it needs to be terminated. It should not be restored until and unless its problems are corrected. Having been its target twice since July 2008, I am presenting my own perspective on it. --NYScholar (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [bracketed clarifications; see "and others" and to whom that refers in the July 2008 AN/I. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

Updated below gnangarra's further "Comment" (below block notice). --NYScholar (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just stopped back, after a real-life interruption, to state that, as a user, I am not permitted to "edit" the now-archived Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I in the AN/I archive page. Nor is anyone else, according to the notice there. There remain in the archived-discussion and in the editing summaries relating to initial edits made in that discussion breaches of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Etiquette directed against me, such as claims that I am or was lying (I am not lying and was not lying) and other offensive comments. As I and Ecoleetage and Keeper stated early on in that discussion pertaining to the AN/I filed ... on Sept. 5, 2008, it needed to stop from the start, it contains false statements without "diffs." that actually support them, it includes unfounded and unwarranted charges of "collusion" against Ecoleetage and me; the whole thing should be expunged from Wikipedia, in my view and the view of others. I have gone on record as stating that, and I have explained why both in the archived discussion in that AN/I, in this current talk page, with posting of "diffs." for support. The previous AN/I referred to in the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I now archived is linked in my archive page 21; previous contexts for the July 2008 resolved and archived AN/I are in my earlier archive pages; I have asked people not to quote and move my words from my talk pages (or elsewhere) out of context, and yet this is still occurring, even in Garra's post above (rescued from archive 25, which is a prematurely-added archive page, due to I know not what). In case the bot template needed to be updated from "22" to "23", I have done that, but that may not be what is causing the problem. It needs fixing still it seems. I have to log out now and will not be back for some time; I know not when. --NYScholar (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Malfunctioning archive bot and improper archive page creations?

I do not know why there have been two additional archive pages [24 and 25, after 23] for my talk page created, none of which is full, since yesterday. I just saw this comment of Sept. 10, 2008 #request, because someone or something placed it in an archive page (25) that did not exist last night or even early this morning. I almost didn't see it at all. Everyone who posts in Wikipedia is a real person; we use log-in identities to protect our privacy and our private identities. If someone uses his or her real name in Wikipedia, it is published in this version of Wikipedia and all over the internet. I have no control over others' practices in choosing Wikipedia identities, and I am not aware of anything that I have done that violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette in my comments in either of the AN/I situations. Although I have continually posted my concerns in good faith, I have been continually set upon as if I have not. I assure you that since first contributing to Wikipedia as "NYScholar" in June 2005, I have done my best to learn about and to follow Wikipedia's obviously-convoluted and often contradictory editing policies and guidelines, which are frequently edited and changed by those editing Wikipedia, and often vandalized. I have done my best to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and yet be forced (demanded) to respond to in my own view entirely-unfounded and false charges that I have not been editing in good faith. Despite my requests for compassion and understanding because I have other important non-Wikipedia work to do (which have been in the "N.B." above and were only edited out in the past two days in response to Shell's comments about the "N.B." section), I was continually being forced by administrators and others to reply to them in what I increasingly regard as a dysfunctional AN/I based on both misunderstandings and violations of the AN/I instructions by the user who posted it and by the continual references to a previous AN/I by others, including administrators, extending it when it should have been expunged.

If posting new comments, please do so in my current talk page and do not create or add new archive pages. The bot may be misfunctioning again. Perhaps the code needs to be checked again. When I revised the "N.B." at Shell's request (above), I moved down the template. Perhaps some is wrong again in it now. I am manually going to move the comments mis-archived into the current talk page if that is where they belong, and I will move what should have been archived (if anything) into archive 23, which is not "full" as it states [in my watch list; see refs. to new archive pages in my "contributors" history]. To repeat: I did not create archive pages 24 and 25. I don't know how or why they began to exist. --NYScholar (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [corr. archive page numbers. --NYScholar (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)]

I think I may have fixed it (again with things needing to be only on their own line); I should have been more careful the first time I tried to fix things. Would you like me to put 24/25 on 23 and then delete the other erroneously created archives? Shell ^babelfish 03:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell. I hope that this fixes it. I came back to see if there was a reply from you, since I am looking for further guidance re: that block above, and wanted to see if you were able to fix the bot. I think that it looks as though the problem is that the curved brackets to end the template were next to its last line of parameters instead of on a separate line. I didn't know that the brackets also had to be by themselves; I thought (as w/, say, infobox templates), the brackets could be at the end of the parameters. I mostly edit content articles in Wikipedia; bots are not in my experience (as I stated in archive 21, I was then a "virgin" bot user). So thank you. Let's see how this one works.

(cont.)Please scroll back up to prev. section, re: the unblock request the section #Request, which first went into archive page 25 instead of into this current talk page:

(cont.)Please note: The fact is that my reply to Gnan/garra's #Request initially begins: "You are free to edit it out if you wish." Diffs.[I added my worry in brackets after that....]

If anything, I gave Gnan/garra my explicit permission to do what was needed; but I still think altering the record of the archived discussion is not permitted. If I were to do something like that, and anyone saw my user name in the editing history of an archived AN/I discussion, I would be blocked and even possibly banned under the current circumstances of the now-unmentionable (only by me apparently) matter.

(cont.)If I don't comment in reply, it means that I am logged out of Wikipedia and haven't seen your comment. I tried to place the beautiful feature you have on top of your own talk page (status buttons), but I don't know how to do that. I really like the design of your talk page, but it is way too complicated for me to figure out how to do myself. I like the top menu and the colors and the box for discussions; I tried that, but mine came out orange, and I feared it might interfere w/ archiving bot, so I just went back to this normal no-box for discussions. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the archive bot is working correctly again. I actually didn't know that the items all needed to be on separate lines until I went looking to figure out why you were having a problem :) Hopefully it will behave now. Shell ^babelfish 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I have edited out comments by others about the AN/I filed ... on September 5, 2008, because I have been advised by my adopter/mentor Shell that I should not engage in further comments about it on my talk page. I have placed the unblock request with concise reasons as asked by the declining administrator. I will be deleting and not archiving the comments about [it] placed on my talk page [by others] [Ed. (NYS): clarification. --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]. ~~I've left them visible in preview mode for the time being.~~ If people want to move their comments to WP:AN/I [the AN/I project page], they are instructed to do so in the instructions at the top of that page. The Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I has been "closed" by garra, an administrator. That administrator blocked me for reasons that I and others dispute. I regard it as an unfair and punitive block and not as a preventive block. Prior to the placement of the block, I had already stated that I would not be discussing the Sept. 5, 2008 AN/I further on my current talk page upon the advice of Shell. I do not welcome any further comments about it by anyone else on this current talk page; my own previous discussions of it are already archived in archive page 23. Archive pages 24 and 25 will be deleted once the material in them is properly re-archived by the bot. They were mistakes caused by a malfunctioning code in the template that Shell and I have attempted to fix.

To those whose comments I have edited out and will delete: Please know that I both read and appreciate them; but, upon the advice of Shell, there will be no further discussion of the AN/I matters on my current talk page. For my reasons relating to my now third unblock request, please scroll up. Again, thank you for your comments. You are free to copy them and to move them to AN/I project page, where they are more appropriately placed at this time. --NYScholar (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have run into over 6 Wikipedia busy server error messages in trying to update my comments here. It is too difficult to post in Wikipedia at this time, and I am logging out due to that problem and lack of time to post here at this time. For information about my mentorship by Shell, please contact her directly via her own talk page. Thanks very much. --NYScholar (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC) [As I am currently blocked, I myself cannot post there. --NYScholar (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]

Please also keep in mind that, since I am currently blocked, I am unable to post thank you messages or any other messages on any user talk page or anywhere else in Wikipedia. This is the only page that I am currently able to edit. I do thank those who I know placed their comments in good faith; I just think that those comments are inappropriately placed on my current talk page. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[Please see my editing history summaries re: ellipses. --NYScholar (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)]