User talk:NYScholar/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Adoption

I'd be happy to adopt you, but we'd have to have a discussion first. If you accept, I suggest simply abstaining from any more edits or comments to the pages. I will be happy to be a go-between and make your concerns known.

I too am a professional (granted, I'm one in the military, but a profession nonetheless) and professional standards do NOT translate to Wikipedia. Neither are right or wrong, but are simply ways to do things.

Hopefully we can talk and get this straightened out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, BQZip01. Please see the exchange with User:Jayron32, which I was engaged in when I saw the orange message bar and which then I responded to after seeing it just now. Please get back to me after you have a chance to look at the current problems that I am facing, my current talk page "hidden/show" messages, and Talk:Harold Pinter, as well as the ongoing "ban" discussions in the AN/I page. Thanks. I'll be back in a couple of days (or not). ;) --NYScholar (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already looked at it and voted. I think your tenacity is laudable (as even many of your opposition stated), but just a little out of focus. I think I could help sharpen that lens and get us all on the same page. Your dedication is worth keeping, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to be clear, I will not be your spokesman. You are a grownup and I will expect you to fight your own battles. However, I'll be happy to answer any questions and guide you in understanding policies, guidelines, etc on Wikipedia and, in general, be a sounding board to discuss things. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with not editing articles or not commenting further in the AN/I page since I do not want to edit articles or that page.

I've already stated that I am certainly allowing other editors to convert citation style to whatever they decide on and to try to shorten etc. Harold Pinter. I've given them all quite enough content and sources to work with over the next few weeks or months, or however long it takes them.

But I do need to be able to respond to your comments and to post on your talk page to get your attention perhaps. And as in #Summary above, I did feel I need to comment when I saw in the AN/I ban discussion what I perceive as extremely misleading things being claimed about me and/or my editing w/o any "diffs." or evidence being given as support. That kind of "free for all" commenting seems totally the opposite of WP:V required for articles and also seems contradictory to WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette. It does shock me that Wikipedia administrators do that and that no one calls them for that kind of thing. Given Jimmy Wales's emphasis on how administrators are no less responsible for upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines than any other editor, I do not understand how much of this is allowed to go on in Administrator's Noticeboard Incident reports and discussions. To me this kind of thing seems unfair and to lack evenhandedness of treatment (of all editors).

Unfortunately, at the discussion of bans, etc. AN/I page, I encountered a comment by yet another editor (administrator) generalizing about something that I recall happened years ago, when I was a relatively new Wikipedia editor (that apparently she's never gotten over), again providing no diffs. to back up what she's referring to, so people can examine how terrible this thing might be (putting templates on top of an article), which I recall that at the time I thought sorely needed it (though clearly she disagreed and still does); talk about harboring a grudge.... There appear to be a lot of grudges being harbored against me in that discussion page....a lot of people who would prefer that I were gone....

Further information (for BQZip01)

[I'm outdenting from this point if you don't mind:] For the record: I still place templates on articles that need them, sometimes my templates are consolidated by bots into one template at top. Sometimes when templates are at the bot. of articles and need to be at top, I move them to more logical position so that they will be noticed. I see that as a service.

In my general following of internal Wikipedia articles as I'm working on articles, I find a lot of breaches of WP:NOR, plagiarism. and missing citations in articles, and sometimes take the time to signal the problems to other editors who may be able to work on fixing them. I do that work in entirely good faith, and yet the administrator mentioning this assumes the opposite: what happened to WP:AGF? (The venom against me just drips from her comment. What happened to forgiveness mentioned in WP:Etiquette?

Someday I might be able to forgive Jezhotwells; I did once before, placing a smile template on his/her talk page (and that's how I got one back, located in archive page 25 now). As I said, I learned how to do smile templates from Ecoleetage. I've only placed one in the last 2 days, and that was to Abd, whose page I discovered after Abd supported me, now sports a message from Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) discouraging such support as somehow pouring "oil" on fire or something like that. That seems so odd to me; it really seems to me that it is SS who is doing that. Why can't he assume that I am sincere in seeking help but (at my age; over twice yours) I am used to writing a lot because it's my professional work to do so. I began using the e-mail and then the internet around 1985, and I still write e-mail letters that are more like mailed letters and am taken to task for that. I write in whole sentences, I don't use cute emoticons generally or text-messaging abbreviations (I dislike text messaging, though I do it on occasion). Younger people who have been using Wikipedia longer than 2005 seem used to writing in short fragments and not going on and on as I do. It's just a matter of professional background for my generation in my field, being talkative, and personal style. Sorry that others hate it so much.

A highly trained and probably very concise military man is probably the opposite of my style and going to make me change it. But I've given you a good sample of what it currently is.

I do not ask my mentor to be my "spokesman". Clearly, I can speak for myself; people just want me to speak fewer words!

I do have a question: your message on your user or talk page says that you are going to be away for some weeks. Won't you be too busy to serve as a mentor? Plus, I don't use e-mail with Wikipedia (see response above in "hidden/show" sec. to Abd). So that our only ability to "talk" will be via our mutual talk pages.

I will be stepping back (topic banned/community banned or not) and not editing articles in Wikipedia. I think that I devoted far more time and energy to Wikipedia than most people (though not everyone) seems to appreciate. I don't demand appreciation, but I also don't tolerate abuse.

This whole thing about blocks and bans (sanctions) seems really very draconian to me. I've had some relatively short blocks in the past (early one especially when I was very new to Wikipedia and did not know about 3RR and similar things); I've had no bans. I am really not the type of editor one normally would ban, because I never vandalize anything, I don't use sock puppets, I am not malicious, I am not harmful to Wikipedia (at least not intentionally), I am sincere and work only in good faith, and I devote enormous amounts of my time actually contributing to articles in an effort to improve them. It seems ridiculous to me that Wikipedia would ban such an editor because of talk page discussion problems.

I know what the problems are (I can always review Ecoleetage's and Shell's advice to remind me; it's all archived in my talk pages.) I acknowledged the problems right at the start of my message to Jayron32 in my 1st reply to you. (And I really was not just telling Shell what she wanted to hear. I just become encouraged by people asking me questions or commenting to me and think that they want to hear my response. I still do not understand how one can be civil and not respond to a talk page question or comment directed to one. I have not got the "succinctness" factor yet.

Ater directing you to it, I found Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) pointing you to it an an apparent effort to discredit me further. It really seems to me that many of those posting in the current ban discussion have become so invested in being perceived as "right" in a battle (initially an editing war battle begun by Jezhotwells) that winning that battle seems to have obscured improving the quality of articles in Wikipedia. I suggest that some of these editors need to take a look at the many, many articles that I have worked on where I have used citation templates and other then prevailing citation formats when they were consistent; or when I fixed the errors in many of earlier editors' citations so that the whole use of those templates would be consistent. Wikipedia still does not have a consensus on whether authors' names are normal order (first name, last name) or reversed order (last name, first name) and whichever prevails, I try to make them all consistent, even though I strongly dislike last name, first name in endnotes when there is an alpabetized list of "References", since there is no need to have last names first in notes (which are numbered, not alphabetized). In the sciences (ACS style, e.g.) they still use last name first in notes and they have a similar multiple reference system (like Wikipedia's "ref name=..." coding, where by note #1 etc. can be at beg. of article and in middle and end, etc., that is appear more than once. That is just not done in the humanities, and particularly not in MLA or Chicago (Humanities) or even APA style (Social Sciences) referencing. It is rather unique to the sciences.

I've taught research and writing (documentation formats) since the late 1960s in colleges and university English departments. It is really hard to see what in academic writing (in all disciplines) would be considered very poor style, mechanics, and format in many Wikipedia articles. Once I see, however, what these other editors of Harold Pinter come up with, if it turns out to be consistent, I should be able to figure out how to follow it. One format I have not used in Wikipedia is the very complicated-looking system whereby notes to a text are interlinked to the source in a reference list. That is beyond my Wikipedia experience. I have only seen very few articles here which do that, and I don't even know if it still a current Wikipedia format. Perhaps you know what I am referring to and can point me to the WP:CITE format that is. I won't be editing, but at least I might be able to recognize the format from early reading of some articles in Wikipedia (circa 2005 to 2007).

Thanks again for volunteering your mentoring services. Please let me know what you decide to do, and what I am supposed to do in return if the "closing" administrator (whoever that is or becomes) in this ban discussion decides on letting this mentorship (or any mentorship) go forward.

It is possible that my first mentor (Ecoleetage) wanted to mentor me en route to an administratorship. If that is your key reason for wanting to mentor me, I am not sure that is the best reason to do so. I really need the kind of mentor who understands the nature of my conflicts with these other editors and who is able to direct me when I am treading on falling back into the "talk page patterns" that these editors who want to ban me don't like. I did have some improvement for a while under both Ecoleetage's mentorship and for a while under Shell's, but after we lost touch, I regressed, and, then regressed further after she ended the mentorship entirely. She has become very disgusted with me about that. I needed to have a mentor to replace her immediately, I see now. I did okay for a bit without one, but clearly I needed no gap between mentors.

You said that we needed "to talk": I don't know that you had this kind of talk in mind.

In mentoring me, if you do, what do you have in mind? --NYScholar (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Namely copyrights and conciseness.

Copyrights: People have the automatically granted rights to have materials copyrighted (and appropriately protected) if they meet the threshold for originality. That said, with that protection comes exceptions and responsibilities. One of these exceptions is fair use which allows us to use copyrighted photos. To keep us out of potential problems, Wikipedia further restricted non-free content with WP:NFCC. In relation to the image in question, yes, they own a copyright on the image, but the existence of a copyright and their stated restrictions do not apply under fair use. Perhaps the difference is within your understanding of American law. I don't know, but the law trumps their restrictions here in the U.S. (where the servers are and where the law applies). We also cannot go by every countries' laws as there would be very little content if we go by, oh let's say, North Korea's view on copyrights.

Less is more: I used to be the same way. You can utterly destroy (or at least attack) any argument with a litany of verbiage, but it is overkill. There are times where it is appropriate, but most of the time less is indeed more. Ignore the BS and focus on the meat of the issue. Don't worry about nuances. People can tell when people are being snippy/rude/etc.

Policy vs. Guidelines: Policy is effectively black letter law. Guidelines are suggestions that most people follow. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to, BUT you should have a good reason for doing so.

Well, that's a start. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to call it a night and get some R & R/go to bed....:

1. I have no problem not having any comments to make on other people's uses of images; I will hold my tongue. I understand fair use; sometimes in fair use rationales, however, I encounter lack of information about the copyright owner (which is something people are supposed to identify), lack of dates of publication/etc., incorrect statements about the nature of the source or image, and so on. In terms of the use to which the image is actually being put in an article: sometimes, as I stated already in case of contested image in HP article, the image does not appear to be necessary at all; it is decorative and not essential information. The irony here is that I like the image; I think ahead to when the article does get nominated as a featured article candidate, however, and remember that if there are copyright violation issues (which there are when a fair use rationale is disputed), then that can lead to the rejection of FA candidacy or failure in a review. I have stated that and no one sees what my concern is. I do not want to discuss copyrights, fair use, and images mostly, and until this instance this past week, I really have had very little if any recent (last 6 months) involvement in any image or other copyright discussions; the examples in the "ban" comments are old; one dates back to 2007 (!) and the others I just deferred to everyone else, because it was a lost cause. In that case it wasn't "fair use", it was unsubstantiated (no dates, no publication information) claims of Polish public domain; those images from months or more ago, I see stil have notices that they are missing that information although the images remain in WP.
2. In achieving conciseness I still have (as per above) a long way to go.... Being in a hurry to get offline helps me to be concise. I am a nightowl and have immense powers of concentration, so w/o a time to be somewhere else, I work and work....

• Ok, so let's talk about copyrighted images.

1. Per WP:NFCC: The image or media description page contains the following: Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder. The date is not required nor is the copyright holder's name.
2. Images of deceased people (with no available free images) can be copyrighted images. The reasoning is twofold: 1) it is desired to have an image of a person. Their face is an image of who this person was. No image produced after their death can adequately produce the value of identification of the person. 2) Unless a free image exists, another one cannot possibly be created. Such an image is not decorative and serves the role of identification in a way that text alone cannot possibly replace. If you'll browse through WP:FFD, you'll find there are many such exceptions made and it is the de facto norm.

• as for conciseness, I find that if I type something that is too long, it is sometimes easier to delete it all and start over. This may sound like a waste of time, but I find my thoughts and ideas much more cohesive the second time through. Perhaps this will help...

If you'll provide me links, I'll be happy to look at other images you've tagged and see if I can explain them further or assist. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was logged out while sleeping, and I just returned to my computer a little while ago; for some reason I did not notice this post from you before I had logged out; maybe you posted it while I was asleep (literally; not "asleep at the wheel" so to speak. :-) ). (cont.)

I do not think there are any images that I've tagged recently that are still tagged with my templates; nothing ongoing. If you mean in the longer term past: those should all be accessible from my user page linked above via my talkheader/user and talk page (at top). (cont.)

Here's the link to that user page: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues; the images are in section 2 (2.2) of the contents. --NYScholar (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not involved currently in any disputes about any images. Other editors have removed my templates placed on 1 of the images being used in Harold Pinter; it's the one from the 1950s that the compiler of his acting and directing webpages placed in the official webpage of Pinter's acting career (accessible via the link to "Acting" in the main lefthand menu of HaroldPinter.org. You'll find the information in the sources currently cited in the June 27th version of Harold Pinter in the section on his early theatrical career. (cont.)

(Update for BQZip01:) Just for the record/FYI: Given further misstatements in the "ban" (copyright) discussion: The Nobel Prize Medal (R) image that I was questioning in 2007 (!) had to do with the placement of the image of one side of a 1933 medal for the Nobel Peace Prize in the infobox for Nobel Prize; it was ultimately resolved, as a result of my expressing my concerns, when the decision of Wikipedia administrator(s) was to leave it out of the infobox; I had already repositioned it to a pertinent section of the article, where serves as an illustration, along with another Nobel Prize Medal (R) image. That resolution could not have occurred if I had not persisted. (This is all documented in my archived talk pages and in the special userspace I created for copyright issues—specifically so that I would not have to keep talking about them in image and article talk pages (!)—beginning in 2006; see section 2.1 of it: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues#Information pertaining to registered trademarks and copyright pertaining to images of the Nobel Prize Medals; the relevant images are linked and discussed in section 2.1 of the contents. (cont.)

Comments made by some "endorsers" in the "ban" (copyright) discussion distort this actual history. (One editor who argues against the inclusion of an image in a subsection of Harold Pinter#Honours: Harold Pinter#"Art, Truth and Politics": The Nobel Lecture wants to move a part of it, one he uploaded recently, to the infobox (from which, I already explained to him, very similar images have been removed and/or reverted by administrators before.) (cont.)

If I had not brought the problems with the placement of this image currently still removed from the infobox of Nobel Prize to the attention of Wikipedia, the image of the medal would not have been removed from the infobox, where it was not appropriately placed. It still remains appropriately placed as an illustration (with my support) in the section of the article on the historical object that it actually illustrates: in Nobel Prize#Nobel Prize medals (it's a photograph of his 1933 medal on display in an exhibit). (cont.)

Source citations that I added to Nobel Prize (and some of the individual Prize articles), and Norman Angell (back in approx. 2006 to 2007[!]) revealed that the design of the medal for this Nobel medal changed after Norman Angell received his. Please consult the relevant articles for the history of the medals and also for the editing history relating to the images. It reveals the fuller contexts that are being distorted by lack of "diffs." in the "ban" discussions. --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01: I need some clarification re: whether or not you have decided to serve as my mentor. Have we an arrangement, or are we still discussing this matter? I will be logged off both Wikipedia and my computer for several hours today, and may not see your reply until much later. I am trying to take a break from Wikipedia and also to enjoy my Sunday and to get some much-needed work done after my return from my 2 weeks in London. Thanks very much again for any assistance that you are willing to provide. --NYScholar (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will serve as a mentor, but I have professional matters that need attending and will not be able to respond for at least 24 hours. In short, just slow down, make short statements about what problems you see on the talk page, don't be quick to revert, and don't accuse people of Wikilawyering. Franamax is a good friend here on Wikipedia and is just trying to help. Most of his points are spot on. In any case: relax and just enjoy the rest of your weekend. These concerns aren't going to go away or be solved overnight, so get some rest and we'll chat tomorrow. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Will do. Thanks. (The term Wikilawyering only came to mind bec. someone voted in the poll to ban me, accusing me of "Wikilawyering"!! I apologize to your friend; hope he doesn't take offense.) I'm off to eat and watch TV and won't be back here for a while either. Will not be editing articles or having anything to do w/ copyright matters. (cont.)

Have a good rest of weekend (what's left of it) too, and good luck w/ the ongoing professional work. I welcome the time to turn back to my own!!! Looking forward to working with you, should I still be part of this "community". --NYScholar (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[Please see additional update to your request for examples of images that I've discussed in the past. When you return, you might want to take a look at that addendum. It will show how I understood copyright and fair use back in 2006 and 2007 and suggest how my understanding of Wikipedia's WP:IUP#Fair use images, [and other WP copyright policy links given in my usersubpage], may have evolved between 2006 and the present (June 2009); though I still have confusions in part (I think) due to to perceived inconsistencies in/between the description and the application of Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines throughout Wikipedia (and its various image review pages). Some of my concerns were supported by administrative past decisions in the past. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)]

Additional concerns (if you can help)

• Please note that Wingspeed is removing quotation marks from properly quoted phrases in the lead of the article creating what I have warned against: resulting in plagiarism from sources. Those are not Wikipedia editor's words (not Wingspeed's words), those are words of the sources cited. That is very poor editing that results in violations of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I've pointed that out in the "peer review" of the article and Wingspeed just doesn't seem to care. I am highly concerned that if this kind of editing is allowed to continue, it will result in an article that plagiarizes from the sources that I've cited and already quoted accurately. Please examine this situation if you can on my behalf and try to head off any kind of ongoing plagiarism of that kind. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'll looked at this but didn't see anything. perhaps a diff to show me what you're talking about. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the 1st para. of the lead: Diff.; earlier version w/ "/" is currently in my sandbox, accessible from my talkheader above. [He's also screwed up the use of serial commas and other use of commas in the lead.] --NYScholar (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I seem what you mean and I agree that it is not properly quoted, but it is attributed, so plagiarism isn't in effect here. While it should be in quotes, there is no reason it can't be easily fixed. Make a simple note on the talk page to the effect of, "I'm just trying to make sure we get a quotation right here. I think "XYZ" should be in quotes as it comes directly from the article." and let others make the change. If that doesn't work, drop me a line and I'll throw in my two cents and see if I can't help work this out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01 (to respond only here, very briefly) as I just saw this prior to logging out again (see my comment on your talk page): In my view, it is useless for me to do that. I know that Wingspeed intentionally removed proper quotation marks despite my already having pointed out that they are necessary. (When one quotes a source's words, one uses quotation marks; that is the meaning of Wiktionary:quotation. WP:MOS#Quotations.) I've discussed the matter in full already in the "peer review", which is linked at the top of Harold Pinter. Wingspeeed is intentionally disregarding the point. I am "just trying to make sure we get a quotation right here"; no one there cares. --NYScholar (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wingspeed should also not be changing previously correct Wikipedia usage referring to Pinter's winning the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature [proper name]. (cont.)

See the unnecessary piping in his sentence "In 2005 he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature." [where he changes "List of Nobel Laureates in Literature" to "Nobel prize for literature"]. (cont.)

Further information (for BQZip01)

[That is, it is not an improvement and it is not consistent with WP:MOS#Consistency and what follows re: use of "proper names" in Wikipedia, for Wingspeed to change the "proper name" of the Nobel Prize in Literature) to Nobel prize for literature" in the unnecessary piping of correct and proper usaged, as in "Nobel Laureate in Literature" to "Nobel prize for literature" in "Nobel prize for literature", added to the lead when removing "and the 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature." (cont.)

The earlier phrase "2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature", could be changed, if desired, to: "In 2005 he won [or was awarded] the Nobel Prize in Literature" or "In 2005 he became the Nobel Laureate in Literature", still using the proper names of the Nobel Prize in Literature, as per WP:MOS#Consistency.] (cont.) (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]

Doing so creates inconsistencies of usage in the article. The recommendation in WP:MOS is to avoid "Variety of English"-specific usage wherever possible because the readers of the article are all English-speaking readers, not just people from the UK; the way to avoid that problem is to use the proper name of the Nobel Prize in Literature as linked in Wikipedia; the name is Nobel Prize in Literature; usage of this name was consistent in the article until Wingspeed just began introducing inconsistencies. --NYScholar (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• That is a relatively simple fix and I think we'll probably eventually just go by the official name, but there may be other semi-official names, historical names, etc. that are also perfectly acceptable. I will help you discuss this with the others and see what we can come up with, but just hold off until tomorrow. It's just a difference in which preposition to use, not slander in a BLP... — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "official" not the UK name of the Nobel Prize in Literature should be used consistently throughout the article Harold Pinter too. Pt of info.: Pinter is dead (died on 24 Dec. 2008); his article is no longer subject to WP:BLP, except for still living persons, espec. his relatives, mentioned in it. --NYScholar (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree the official name should be used, but I think there are other colloquialisms that are just as appropriate. In this case, he did get a Nobel Prize.

"What did he get it for?"

"His literature"

Of course the proper question would be "What category did he get it in?" The point is that both are accurate and they accurately convey the meaning of the sentence. It isn't exactly accurate, but it does get the gist across. In any case, make a short note about your concerns on the talk page and I think it will be fixed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Further information (for BQZip01)

We are talking about an insertion w/o consensus in the lead of the article (as well as the rest of the article's usage, which was correct until this change.) There is no value in that piping of the link to Nobel prize for literature referring to Pinter's winning the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature). [Re: sentence: "In 2005 he received the Nobel prize for literature." which alters the previous reference to Pinter as "the 2005 Nobel Laureate in Literature." That could be, more properly: "In 2005 he became the Nobel Laureate in Literature." or "In 2005 he won the Nobel Prize in Literature." Note the proper name Wikipedia article usage in Literature both in that List of Nobel Laureates in Literature and in Nobel Prize in Literature, in the Nobel templates), and throughout the rest of this article, including in the infobox.] (cont.)

This unnecessary change (undiscussed by Wingspeed and not even present in his edit summary) from formal proper-name encyclopedic English to colloquial British newspaper usage relates to earlier editing warring over WP:MOS#National varieties of English (sec. on WP:MOS#Consistency within articles) that is warned against in WP:MOS. There was no consensus for that change and certainly not in the lead of the article, where the usage needs to be formal and consistent with the rest of the articles in Wikipedia re: Nobel Prizes, such as Nobel Prize in Literature. Colloquial (not encyclopedic) use of "Nobel Prize for Literature" (etc.) appears in news accounts in the UK. This is an encyclopedia. The proper (encyclopedic) name of that (and other) Nobel Prizes, as used both in Wikipedia main space such as Nobel Prize in Literature, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Physics, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is clear. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an encyclopedia. Its style guidelines call for articles to be encyclopedic and to use formal diction. It is not necessary for the article to use British English colloquialisms (and especially not in the lead) when a link to the proper English name of the Prize already is linked throughout the article. To do so does a disservice to readers who are not familiar with the Nobel Prize in Literature and who need the link provided without the unnecessary colloquial Britishism. (cont.)

If one does indeed have the general reader in mind, one needs to provide correct language. For consistency, one needs to maintain the usage throughout the article. In the U.S. formal usage refers to Nobel Prize in Literature and informal newspaper or onine blogging usage sometimes (but less often than in Britain) uses "for". It is just a matter of use of formal English and consistency. Wikipedia is not a blog or a newspaper. It is disturbing to see such changes made when they have already been fully discussed and when there is no consensus for making them. I have no means of affecting changes in the article Harold Pinter or any other article. My points are simply being disrespected and disregarded. --NYScholar (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Pertaining to another aspect of the MOS sec. on national varieties of English: Harold Pinter's wholly documented international (worldwide) fame, there is no reason to expect or to assert that this article will be "mainly read" by readers from the UK or any other British-English speaking locale; it is an article directed to all readers of English Wikipedia, throughout the world, due to his international reputation. I have deferred to their desire for UK English (wherever I've noticed the need for spelling words, though I missed one "recognized" or "recognizing" somewhere that needs change to "recognised" or "recognising"), but to alter the proper name of the Nobel Prize in Literature has no basis in WP:MOS's section on national varieties of English. --NYScholar (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Some advice, just dial it back a little. I already agree that it is wrong, but it isn't a collosal mistake and it doesn't alter the clear intent of the sentence. I and many others are of the WP:BRD philosophy. WP:BEBOLD is a key component of Wikipedia and we need not have a known consensus to make changes to an article. Like I said before, the place for this is on the talk page. Best of luck. Hopefully we'll talk again soon. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

More general comments

I am not asking for any special privileges or any release from Wikipedia editing policies or guidelines due to my expertise. I follow Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, w/ ref. to WP:POL, particularly: WP:BLP, WP:V, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and guidelines in WP:MOS, including WP:CITE and WP:EL. [I just discovered that where I have been linking WP:LOP (List of policies), I intended to be linking WP:POL (Policy, including thhe list of policies!) I try to follow all of the policies and guidelines also linked in my "N.B." (Nota bene: Note well) at top of my talk page via my talk header). --NYScholar (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)]

There is no way that I could have provided the information that I have provided if I were not the specialist on Pinter that I say I am. That's not the point. I provide full citations to verified (not just verifiable, but verified) printed and online sources that I have copies of. I could not be providing the material (quotations, facts) if I did not have access to these critical books, articles, and newspaper feature articles and reviews. The idea that I'm asking not to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines is actually ass backwards. I'm giving page references to printed sources in my hands (from my own book shelves); and URLs from online sources which I have usually printed out. If I were not an expert scholar in this field I would not have this material to provide. Verifiablity is what WP:V requires; I've gone a step further; these are verified sources. If Wikipedia editors are going to question that, then they will have to check every source themselves, and that is not what WP:V is. The policy requires that the sources be "verifiable"; what I provide is "verifiable" and verified, going one step farther. (Sometimes a typographical error occurs in the peer revising process, as people move things around; I've tried to update URLs and correct those kinds of inadvertent errors when I become aware of them. I even took the time when I was working in London to alert Wikipedia that I would be checking sources when I returned home, and then I did that work after I returned home last week.

[Contrary to Shell's and other Wikipedia users' false allegations that I am a "student", my userboxes are all accurate. I cannot give more specific information about my identity without compromising my anonymity on Wikipedia, and to make such false charges, perhaps in an attempt to force me to do so, is a total abrogation of Wikipedia policy. If one uses a screen name in Wikipedia, one does so for one's own reasons. Mine are to protect my personal privacy. No one (whether the person is an administrator or not) should be casting such false aspersions on me; my work stands for itself. If other Wikipedia editors are unable to recognize its value, that is their weakness, not mine. When citing an entire book (as some of the source citations that I provided do), it is totally in keeping with WP:CITE to do so without giving a page reference, because one is citing the argument of the entire book, not a specific page in it. If the other editors were familiar with the sources, they would recognize that. Since they are not familiar with the sources, they do not recognize that. (Updated.) --[NYScholar] 05:30, 7 July 2009] --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

" Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." (WP:CITE#Including page numbers). (updated). --NYScholar (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened after that has to do w/ 2 photographic images,File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg; Search results (my specific concerns about fair use criteria are provided on various user talk pages concerning images listed in those results; I hadn't seen these postings before today; the fair use rationale was changed to accommodate my concern about #8; it is different now than it was when I questioned its accuracy.] Diffs. [Steve Smith at that time was posting as "Sarcastic idealist".] (cont.)

Jezhotwells's insistence on turning the "peer review" initiated when his/her RfC didn't result in the outcome s/he desired into an "ownership" complaint relating to "MLA citation style" (again), etc. and etc. Small potatoes compared to the ongoing vandalism and sock puppetry.

[Jezhotwells moved the RfC to Talk:Harold Pinter archive, where the "Mediation" link also resides. If one wants to examine them, one has to go to that archived talk page. (cont.)

That "Mediation" remains/ed (?) open; the opener never returned to close it. After that Jezhotwells initiated a "review" of her/his own editing style, prominently focusing on "NYScholar", which, to me, appeared to be the reason for initiating that review of him/herself; I regarded it as a surreptitious way of focusing on me further. It really appears to me that Jezhotwells (et al.) were intent on taking over "ownership" of the article, and that the "ownership" argument applies to these current editors, who were determined to block the main contributor from working on it. Point of information: There were no source citations in Harold Pinter before I began editing it on 30 June 2006. (Updated.) --[NYScholar] 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember the user name; it's short and has a fancy script [(Ed.: Roux)]: But I have answered that generally very pleasant (up to now patient) person's question about whether I would work to change the sources to some other citation style. I answered that on this talk page several times; I am not writing anything in the AN/I space anymore and haven't for the past day or so. (Scroll up.)

I have said, no, I will not be doing that; I am leaving it up to the other editors (who do not want to work with me at all and who make that clear in their attempt to ban me from editing the topic Harold Pinter) to change my hard-worked on MLA style full citations to whatever style they decide they want.

They have explicitly asked me not to edit the article and to give them the "time"/"space" to do that. Initially, it was not I who did not want to work with them (Jezhotwells, et al.); it is they who do not want to work with me (who want to ban me from working on the topic, to start out w/ and now from Wikipedia entirely).Diffs.,Diffs.,Diffs.,Diffs.,Revision history, Diffs. (cont.)

See My July 1, 2009 Sandbox version of Harold Pinter, which contains page references to numerous printed sources (published books and articles on Pinter) [contrary to Ssilvers' and Tim riley's claims otherwise] and the "full citations" required for a "controversial topic" (which Harold Pinter still is, despite Ssilvers' removal of that template and the inconsistencies of punctuation now created in citations in Harold Pinter); all endnotes need to end with periods, as I provided originally, which are still visible in that Sandbox version; "p." and "pp." are "deprecated" (no longer used) in most current documentation styles cited by Wikipedia as options for citations (e.g., MLA, APA, & Chicago), and commas are not necessary between the name of the source and the page number or page numbers; in Wikipedia citation templates; "parenthetical referencing" (of various kinds) and "MLA style" in particular are still offered as optional selectable features in the {{MoSElement}} style template parameters in Wikipedia, the style sheet template removed by Ssilvers, along with the "controversial" template (which states the requirement for "full citations").Diffs.

Ssilvers' claims about me throughout the AN/I are false and clearly not based on a careful examination of the editing history of Harold Pinter.Diffs.; I spent weeks working collaboratively with Willow in summer/fall 2007 to bring the article through a "good article review", which it passed with MLA style citations; it was only from December 25, 2008 (the day Pinter's death was announced) that Jezhotwells entered the process of editing Harold Pinter; after that, the prevailing citation style was constantly under attack by Jezhotwells, and later by his/her cohort of editors; Ssilvers et al., who were apparently enlisted apropos of the "peer review" initiated by Jezhotwells; I had not seen Ssilvers editing anything, including any articles on Pinter before that, between June 30, 2006 and the peer review initiated by Jezhotwells (May/June 2009). I made many changes to the citations based on Jezhotwells' requests from December 25, 2008 until I stopped editing the article last week.] (Updated.) --[NYScholar] 06:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So I repeat my own rhetorical question from earlier: why would I want to commit myself to taking even more of my time to convert the full citations already provided when (1) I don't know what they want to convert them to; and (2) whatever the Wikipedia citation template or style is--it is not one that I necessarily know how to use; and (3) I have my own non-Wikipedia work to do and now even less time left to do editing in Wikipedia, due to the time lost over these hugely time-consuming sanction battles.

My time is gone. I really wanted to turn back to my own work to begin with for the rest of the summer/fall, and now I've lost almost a week on this. So the time is gone.

If I am able to take any time to edit Wikipedia later in the summer, then I will need mentoring and I will call on my mentor if I am not banned and have one.

But I'm staying entirely away from copyright matters by choice not coercion. (I don't like getting involved in them and have stated that before.) It's just very time-wasting, in my view, and I'll leave it to others.

That means that I will not be taking the time to upload any more photographic images to Wikipedia probably. Not my own, and not anybody else's. I just don't want to get involved in such matters in Wikipedia. They always seem to engage one in controversy. To avoid it entirely is what I intend to do.

The DVD Illuminations image has stable fair use rationales; unless they are challenged on the image page, I don't see a problem with their current use in Harold Pinter. Another editor disagrees with me, but if he is going to do so, he needs to provide his challenges (dispute fair use criteria) on the image page, not in a talk page of the article or other talk pages or AN/I discussions. He needs to add his own templates and present his own arguments to the proper project image review pages and see what happens.

Offline after this....

Thank you and goodnight! --NYScholar (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day NY

Hi there - I'm a wiki editor down in Australia, who's been trying to catch up with some of the controversy, trials and tribulations you've been involved in which seem to have resulted in a discussion at a noticeboard about 'community banning' you (if you're not sure what that means, don't worry - we're not either! ;-) - I thought I'd come by personally (if you're still around at all?) to ask if having had a short while to think about it all you're interested at all in continuing to contribute here on the wiki, and if you're interested in having a chat about some ideas which might make it all a bit easier? Hope you're well regardless, and maybe chat later :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I'm not that well, due to all this, and going to bed I hope; it's 6:07 a.m. now, and my internal time clock is totally turned around, having just come back from the UK and still not on EDT time. Do you mean "chat" here on my talk page? Perhaps if that's what you mean, much later might be possible. I am hoping to take a complete break from Wikipedia, however, as this has just proved too exhausting and demoralizing, and it just doesn't seem to be getting any better. (Due to the "shooting oneself in the foot" syndrome, I suspect....)

Perhaps you could just share the ideas you have which "might make it all a bit easier". Some advice that makes sense to me is to take an extended Wikibreak and just not come here at all. I do love the "G'day NY" in your Australian idiom!! Brightened my very dark night/day.... Off to bed, however.... :-? --NYScholar (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do get that rest, and do take at least some level of wikibreak. Let me suggest reading two essays: WP:DGAF, one of my favorites, and Defend Each Other. Don't worry about the ban, even if you are banned site-wide, that can be handled, if you are willing to cooperate with those who recognize the value of your work and want to foster it. Consider it as merely a speed-bump, which can only damage your vehicle if you are driving too fast. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

G'day again NY, I hope you got some good rest - and I'd certainly echo Abd's advice above too - I did indeed mean chat here, and look forward to you feeling suitably enthusiastic to exchange a few posts. I wish you a wonderful break, and a peaceful return to boot :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Privatemusings. I have posted my position (below) with respect to the "ban" discussions, and am happy to go back to what I prefer to be doing in my own life outside of Wikipedia. There is plenty that I have to do, and I hope to enjoy doing it. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

to use another colloquialism - good on ya, she'll be right! - I've mentioned before elsewhere that it's really important to only engage here as long as one is finding it rewarding, and preferably with a smile. Best wishes, and I'd welcome talking further with you should your time and energy permit at some point in the future. best, Privatemusings (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 'she'll be right' loosely translates as 'everything will work out for the best', I guess, if you were wondering!

Speaking for myself

• For the record: The only formal arbitration dispute that I was involved in occurred in 2007, it involved a source in the article Lewis Libby, and it was resolved in my favor: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar#Final decision. The "Findings" supported my inclusion of the source in question. (cont.)
• I object to the lack of "diffs." posted throughout [both] the [past and the current] AN/I [reports] and the claims by many posting there that they know how I would react to whatever remedy a closing administrator might come up with; they do not know. They cannot speak for me.

Further information (contexts)

[Contexts: One AN/I report is linked above (see previous comments regarding User:Orderinchaos above) in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 26#Summary. The first AN/I (whose subject was changed by User:Sarah, followed my AN/I report (circa Feb. 2008), complaining against quoted incivilities against me posted in my user talk space and in his user page by User:Stuthomas4, who later removed them [and apologized, but continued to post them in his own and various other users talk space and in article talk space: I gave diffs. in the report; here is just one Diffs. (scroll through "next"); the others are in the July 2008 report that I filed. (cont.)

That report (which I filed) involved not only me but also several other editors editing The Dark Knight, who work with User:Stuthomas4, including User:Orderinchaos and User:ThuranX (all of whom were directly involved in an editing dispute relating to that article); the other involved false allegations about me and my then-mentor Ecoleetage filed by Orderinchaos, in my view irresponsibly (see my previous discussion above and in my archived talk pages). Most recently, in addition to continuing to post false statements (without "diffs.") in the current AN/I filed by Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist), more recently, Orderinchaos has opposed my comments relating to a deletion discussion pertaining to {{Ref indent}}; I voted to "keep" it; he voted to "delete" it. User:ThuranX, involved in previous editing and civility disputes pertaining to The Dark Knight is once again making false statements and not posting "diffs." and is now asking for a "resolution" of the attempt to "ban" me from Wikipedia. These users are not "neutral" observers. They are active participants in previous editing disputes. I have tried assiduously to avoid editing any article to which any of them contribute since my work in The Dark Knight, which I ceased doing as a result of my encounters with them. [For further contexts, one needs to consult the entire archived AN/I reports, my own and others' archived talk pages relating to them (or the editing history if the comments have been deleted from various current talk pages), and the current and/or archived talk pages of the related articles. (Without "diffs.", one is just relying on the memories of these editors, and such memories are not reliable evidence of past events. Verifiable evidence appears in archived AN/I reports and archived talk pages and editing histories.) Thank you. (cont.) (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]

• At the moment, I am tentatively hopeful that the other current editors of Harold Pinter—mostly Tim riley, it appears, whom I thanked for his peer review of the article and many of whose suggestions I incorporated in it (working from London on an unfamiliar laptop when I could find time to do that 2 weeks ago and, in New York, over the past week)—will be able to improve the article in the manner of the "Featured Article" style that they would seem to prefer and eventually (however long down the road, given the need for "stability"), that they might be able to nominate it successfully to be a FAC (featured article candidate). I myself have explicitly stated that I do not have the time to participate in that activity. I have done all the work that I want to do on the main article. (cont.)

• If Wikipedia is so unwise as to decide that it does not want my contributions of expertise on the subject in any way (e.g., to take a look at the article once they finish their editing of it), that is its decision, which, of course, I would abide by. In my view, that would be a loss to Wikipedia. Until Wikipedia's closing administrator (whoever and whenever that might be) comes up with a remedy, I have nothing to respond to and I strenuously object to anyone else but I being the ones who decide how and what I might respond. That is up to me. (cont.)

• Furthermore, the idea of some that it makes any sense to ban me from ever contributing to any article that relates to Harold Pinter has to be one of the most ill-advised that I could imagine. I would be willing not to participate in editing Harold Pinter until it is where the other editors would like it to be and then to look at it and offer (in talk space) my views of it or suggestions (in my own or article talk space); but, as I am the one who created many of the related articles and few if any editors currently in Wikipedia have both the expertise and the interest in correcting errors in such articles when they occur, to prevent me from editing the related articles on Pinter (none of which to my knowledge is involved in any dispute) makes no sense at all. (cont.)

• If that is the decision, there is a strong possibility that, as a matter of choice, I may not want to contribute any further to this project, though I will still think about that if and when the time comes. (cont.)

• Let me be crystal clear, however: I will not tolerate any more incivility, disrespect, discourtesy, and/or abuse directed against me either personally or professionally and I will not tolerate any unfair application of Wikipedia's own policies and procedures in dealing with me or any other Wikipedia editor or administrator, or by any of them. (cont.)

• Re: copyright matters in Wikipedia: if one scrolls up to my discussions with my new mentor (Cf. adoption template at top of page [removed after the ban]; see archived User talk:NYScholar/Archive 27#Adoption), one will see that I have already stated that I have absolutely no interest in taking part in any [more] discussions about copyright in Wikipedia [aside from those with my mentor in our talk space]. I have already (since 2006) designed a user subpage that states my preference not to do so. (See my talkheader above: User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues.) If it had not been for the problematic fair use rationale (since corrected by its uploader) in an image in Harold Pinter, I would not have had anything to say about that image (scroll up for links); there is no image currently in Harold Pinter whose inclusion I currently have objections to. This is a non-issue. [Since I wrote this, another editor has changed the "fair use" rationales in that image to a "non-free" one. In my view that change was not needed; the image has been removed, again unnecessarily (in my view), from the article. I will not be drawn further into discussing that change or any other one to the article.] (cont.)

• Finally, if I decide to continue editing any articles in Wikipedia, of course I would try to work even harder than I have already done to "get along" courteously and civilly and productively with other editors in Wikipedia. In my view, that goes without saying, but I am saying it for those who need to be reassured. --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]

Community ban

NYScholar, you are community banned from editing the English-language Wikipedia per the discussion at WP:AN.[1] AdjustShift (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, should you decide you wish to appeal this, and my sense is that Wikipedia would benefit if you do appeal, and I know there are other editors who will agree, and if you think I might be of some assistance, you may (1) email me, I will keep your email confidential, or (2) you may edit, as IP, from any non-blocked IP, my page User talk:Abd/IP; I have requested that edits to that page, in general, not be considered ban violations, and that seems to have been respected. You may also appeal to ArbComm by email. I suggested above that you establish a free email account for the purpose of Wikipedia communication; these accounts are private and Wikipedia editors cannot penetrate that privacy; it's only penetrable by law enforcement or court order, and nothing you have done even approaches that kind of situation. Good luck, in any case. And, remember, brevity is the soul of wit.

You may also, of course, indicate intention to appeal here on your Talk page. In the absence of any express intention on your part to appeal, I will assume that the ban declared by AdjustShift, based on the AN/I discussion, stands and that there is no dispute over it. You may also appeal the block, and may base that on an intention and promise to edit only for the purpose of appeal to ArbComm or to seek a mentor. I do not recommend appealing on the basis of any illegitimacy of the ban itself; challenging a ban like that is a difficult process and very unlikely to be supported by a reviewing administrator, ad hoc.

I do recommend avoiding long posts to your Talk page at this point; however, if you wish to write something long here, try this: Write the long post, putting all but a brief summary in collapse, to start, and save. Then delete the collapse, replacing it with a link to history, where the full post may be read. If it becomes tedious to read your Talk page, your block might be extended to your Talk page, it happens. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, I would strongly caution you against using an IP to edit any page other than this talk page, including Abd's subpage. A community ban does not allow for such editing. Instead I would advise you to take a break and think things over and then, if you wish, appeal to the ArbCom, either directly via email or alternatively by posting an appeal to this talk page which one of the watching administrators would be happy to copy over to the arbitration page for you. Using IPs to edit against the ban, even if only to another user's page is really not in your best interest. Sarah 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That's her opinion. Mine is different, and I'm aware of quite a bit of precedent. If you are blocked from editing your Talk page, and can't use email, as you have expressed, you would have little to lose by messaging me through that IP page, and I would vigorously defend any blocked editor who does it in pursuit of any reasonably legitimate goal; even mild incivility to me would be acceptable. As the page states, it is merely a public equivalent to a private email. Don't abuse this to attack other editors, though describing behavior that should be investigated, in a civil manner, is legitimate. Sarah has properly given you some options that are obviously legitimate and I would consider better. If for any reason you find those impossible for you to use, that's why I suggested the IP page. Edits there will normally only be seen by those who track my contributions. By the nature of the usage, you would probably self-identify in the edit, and this actually would make ban enforcement easier, not harder. Some people haven't thought this all the way through.... --Abd (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that NYScholar will never be a good fit with Wikipedia, and I am confident that very few editors would support an appeal, while many editors would be extremely critical of NYS's editing history at WP. At the recent AN, no one supported NYS's editing techniques; most of those opposing merely said that a ban is an extreme remedy. I sincerely hope that NYS enjoys a very happy and productive career away from Wikipedia and finds other hobbies. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: until and unless there is a discussion where it seems an administrator might restore NYScholar's editing privileges, don't keep beating a horse that appears dead. There are, at present, three forms of appeal possible: to AdjustShift, to ArbComm, and back to a noticeboard. I would avoid the third option like the plague. And I have no prediction to make whether NYScholar will even want to come back. I wouldn't, unless I were confident that the community would protect me. As it should have protected you previously. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)