User talk:NYScholar/Archive 25

Pinter lead

Just uploaded copyedit. I'd be very grateful if you'd carefully compare it with your own version before responding. And then, please, in detail. Many thanks. Wingspeed (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Will not be here. Just logging off. I have a plane at 6:15 a.m. (ET) and have to pack and leave. Sorry that I cannot oblige. I've done what I can so far. Will be back home in early January. Just cannot stay online any further. Thank you for the post. --NYScholar (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished what I was doing when I saw the yellow message alert; I looked very quickly and spotted red-linked missing citations due to the changes you or others made--citations have been lost. They need to be restored, and you need to restore the parenthetical source citation reference to "Obituaries" (with the proper sec. link as added_, which was fine and useful. --NYScholar (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also I just noticed Plagiarism (unintentional) from sources because you do not use quotation marks for exact quotations; those are not your own words, but those of sources, and so on. I don't think the lead that you provided is an improvement overall; it is not NPOV, loses the complex aspects of the subject, accepts points of view of sources without neutrality, and has severe problems of lack of quotation marks and proper use of sources. Quick observations; can't take time to read it carefully and compare thoroughly w/ earlier version(s). Sorry. --NYScholar (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make comments on editing this article on my talk page. See "N.B." above; comments about improving the article really do belong on the talk page of the article, so that all can read them. I'll be away anyway and won't see them. Thanks. Have a good week. --NYScholar (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Harold Pinter

Hello! I appreciate your being really upset about the criticism directed at you personally in the comment you are referring to. Unfortunately, this is not the first time there are comments directed at a person during this debate. First off, let me assure you that I am in no way creating a picture of you as a "bad guy" because of that or any other comment made. There are lots of frustrated people here, and what I am hoping to do is help people get rid of some of that frustration. This does of course not mean that uncivil behavior towards you or anyone else is acceptable. Regrettably, I have seen tendencies towards this sort of thing in the Talk page from way before, so it might take a while to clear the bad air, as it were.

I will try to consult with other people who might have ideas on how to tackle the problem laying at the bottom of all this frustration in a way that doesn't make any of the parties feel attacked. I ask for your patience in the short run, so that I hopefully can make a difference for everyone in the long run.

By the way, I was very happy to see that you took the time to thank User:Jezhotwells for her recent changes, I sincerely believe that communication between you and her is the key to defuse the current situation. That showed extra effort on your part, which did not go unnoticed. Thank you. Delaque (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting this response. I was just about to log off when I saw it. I hope that the archiving of Talk:Harold Pinter is what you intended to be done. If not, feel free to revert any of it, as you deem necessary or helpful. I cannot post on the mediation page anymore, but I do appreciate Jezhotwell's previous edits that corrected errors by other editors (even if they were my own at times) and reverting apparent vandalism or just mistakes by editors made in the article. (Those are the things I appreciate that you suggested mentioning.) I just don't feel comfortable posting any further on the mediation page. I am not ignoring your request, I just don't feel comfortable commenting anymore about this matter. Thanks again for your assistance. Much appreciated. --NYScholar (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I stopped in to make some necessary corrections to the article when logging on briefly before leaving my computer for the rest of today. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Delaque: I am running into serious computer glitches due to the recent updating of my Norton Security program. If I try to go to more than one page of editing histories in Wikipedia articles or talk pages, it freezes my computer, despite having a Pentium D processor in a Dell XPS Gen 5; it's apparently gobbling up my working memory while it runs "pulse updates". This is the best I can do now in response to exaggerations and misleading comments about me posted without editing diffs. throughout user BF's "Comment" on the mediation page and more recently in your talk page. I posted a warning due to the escalation of the personal attacks (which is how I read them):

[Some time ago, I had placed the following signed and time-stamped material below within the "hidden" template simply to take up less space. It contains the editing "diff." ("evidence") requested; apparently Delaque did not realize that. One needs to click on "show" to see the material. I will not be posting further comments about this situation. I've made clear my position against ongoing personalization of this matter by other editor(s), and I will not participate any further in discussing it, as the editing dispute has, in my view and that of the editor who initiated the mediation, already been resolved. Appearing to encourage and in effect to tolerate additional comments of a personal nature in the mediation page violates WP:NPA and is causing harm to me both personally and professionally. --NYScholar (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)]

For the record

• Item 1. The "sentence" removed is a series of multiple potential copyright violations (links), which are removed on sight in Wikipedia space (including talk pages), without any necessary further explanation, according to WP:Copyvio. Here is one of the edit diffs., which was clearly explained 260066446--the entire comment was moved intact initially from Talk:Harold Pinter (see now in Talk:Harold Pinter/archive5, archived at Delaque's own request/suggestion) to the talk page of the article on Pinter's play, Talk:The Collection (where it legitimately belongs--without the copyright violating-links), according to the talkheader templates at the top of both talk pages. That is simply a matter of Wikipedia format. User BF took the move personally, responded in personal terms (as s/he is continuing to do, despite the clear explanations and references to the subjects of these two talk pages in the talkheader templates) and then restored the entire material (including the multiple potential copyright violations) above my previously-time-stamped comment, in which I had already supplied the direct link to The Collection (and hence its talk page: Talk:The Collection) (which I created for this purpose). Nothing about the move was personal in nature. It was a clearcut edit based on the templates on the respective talkpages.
• The only reason that I apologized to user BF (see archive 5 of the Harold Pinter talk archive) was out of courtesy; [by focusing on me as a contributor and not on the reasonable explanation of the edits based on talk page guidelines as templated at top of the talk page, it seemed to me that] BF demanded an apology (contrary to Wikipedia etiquette/civility guidelines), and instead of pointing out the problems therein, I just apologized as s/he wished (to be kind and generous to him/her).
• In my own view, no apology was actually necessary as both the editing summaries and the explanation already clearly justified the reason for the edits as simply related totalkpage header templates (talk page guidelines).
• The matter simply involved the posting of the comment about editing the article on The Collection on the wrong talk page and the posting in that comment of potential copyright violations--noticed also by another editor before I moved the material and deleted the links in question.]
• Moving comments to proper talk pages in Wikipedia is within Wikipedia talk page guidelines, and I explained clearly why the material was being moved. It did not and does not deal with Harold Pinter; it deals with his play The Collection, which has its own talk page, The Collection#Query, to which it was properly relocated (moved)--[I created the talk page there for that purpose]; with a link given to the article on the play (in the section heading of the comment); from there one would simply click on the talk page and find BF's comment about editing that article (on the play, not on the playwright).
• Moreover, this moving of the material to the other talk page was not done in any way "rashly"; it was not "rash"; I considered it carefully before doing it; it took me some time to find the right talk page to move the comment to (I had to check first to make sure that there is an article on the play, which there indeed is). The fact that BF's misplaced comment in Talk:Harold Pinter (now talk archive page 5) was "signed" has nothing to do with anything; the comment is still signed as originally done by BF in the right talk page (on the play not the playwright). Nothing but potential copyright violation-links (noted by another editor too) was removed.
• Nevertheless, user BF restored them in reverting the entire comment that s/he originally posted to the wrong talk page Talk:Harold Pinter despite having the problems in the posting of the links pointed out to him/her by another editor and me. The comments that s/he posted about an article on The Collection are irrelevant to the concerns of editing Harold Pinter, which are supposed to deal with improving that article on the playwright, not the one on the specific play. Because the user came back (I think "rashly") to argue repeatedly about the move without understanding the talkpage headers as the reason for it, many more words (and time) were needed to deal with the matter. S/he could simply have let it go, but didn't and still won't, taking it personally and making a personal issue out of a content edit to a talk page, which was and is not actually personal in any way. --NYScholar (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Item 2. The history of the "Obituaries and related articles" section of Harold Pinter is clear both from the related editing history diffs. (which I cannot post here because my very recently-updated Norton Security is interfering with my ability to gather diffs. from the history of the HP talk page, and requiring me to continually restart my computer to unfreeze it), and the editing history of Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles. [One can simply scroll through the editing history of December 25, 2008 to locate the edits related to this matter.]
• It is not necessary for this section of the article's Bibliography ("Works cited") to be repeated in Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles; it could simply be linked to; but I repeated it initially only at the insistence of this other user, who said it "must" be there, even though there is no basis in WP:MOS for such a demand.
• In my view, it is no skin off anyone's teeth to have it in both places, and I've tried to make the most of it by developing it beyond the 2 mis-formatted entries initially provided by user BF. It is cross-linked both ways and easy to find. For convenience of readers (only), despite the redundancy, I continue to update it in both places, a time-consuming task.
• I created my own user sandbox for adding material to it as well, in case the sources are removed by other editors and they need to be restored.
• It takes a lot of time to put these sources in proper format, and I have taken the time only out of the desire to improve Harold Pinter and related sections of it and to keep them up to date.
• According to the template on the article of this recently-deceased person, there are rapidly-changing events that may require such frequent changes and frequent discussion. These are matters relating to the editing of the article(s), not to the person of any particular contributor.
• These are not "rash" edits. They are carefully considered and have been done over the past 2 weeks, except for several days in the week that I was away (27 through 31 Dec. 2008). As a major contibutor to the article since spring 2006, I try to keep an eye out on its accuracy and to correct errors in its content and format when I see them being introduced. This is responsible not "rash" editing. Explaining edits when asked to do so by other editors is part of talk pages. My explanations are often maligned in personal terms but I have tried to remain civil despite that. I will not, however, tolerate personal abuse of me or my reputation as a editor of Wikipedia or as a scholarly editor. --NYScholar (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

I believe that you are escalating a situation which needs to cool down. There is no reason make threats to users explaining their views. The user has tried to explain the facts behind their statements. If you believe that they are mistaken in their opinion, please clearly state which exact statements are wrong, rather than condemning the entire text, and provide reasons that you believe they are false in a concise way supported by the facts. Threats such as the one on User_talk:BehnamFarid might in themselves be considered Wikipedia:Harassment, and I would suggest you withdraw said warning and apologize. According to WP:RPA, "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I have asked User:BehnamFarid to rephrase some of the wording as a courtesy, despite the fact that I do not yet understand which part of the text would be considered a personal attack according to WP:NPA. I believe everyone involved would benefit from a resolution of this issue in a non-formal, consensual way, and I would ask that you act with restraint during this process, regardless of whether you will discuss it further on the mediation page or not. Delaque (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I issued no "threat"; I posted a customary Wikipedia warning (copied from a template already placed on that same user's talk page [see editing history]) due to the already-escalating personal comments about me posted on your own talk page. You seem to be encouraging as opposed to discouraging this behavior, and that is, in my view, as the victim of the personal comments, a large problem. You need to tell this user that his/her comments about me violate Wikipedia's policy in WP:NPA, which they clearly do. The fact that you did not make that completely clear (that such comments are not tolerated in Wikipedia) has led to the user making further comments that are clearly personal in nature and not about edits. (The user gives no edit diffs. to back up the accusations, which are exaggerated and mistaken interpretations of totally reasonable edits to content and format.) This is extremely upsetting to me. I have acted with enormous restraint, under these circumstances. I do not want to encourage further comments about me of this personal nature, which the mediation page seems to be inviting now since you are leaving up these comments and leaving them on your own talk page. The warning is entirely warranted, in my own view still. I brought the problem to your attention, but it has only worsened after your comment on the user's talk page; namely, more of the same on your own talk page. That is the problem that I am bringing to your attention. Please assist. Thank you. If you cannot keep this problem from getting worse, please ask for further assistance from my mentor, Shell Kinney, or another administrator familiar with these kinds of problems in Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not I who have "escalated" the personalization of this matter, it is user BF, who (from his/her point of view, however mistaken) you seem to be encouraging to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't read "For the record" above, please do so when you can take the time. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(update) Despite Delaque's request, user BF has not removed the personal attacks on me from either the Mediation page or from Delaque's talk page and has deleted the recent activity entirely from his/her own talk page; it is visible in the editing history that I was able to access before today; in deleting all the content, user BF added yet another personal attack against contributors (including me) in his/her editing summary. In my reading of this matter, if anyone has been "escalating" the personalization of this matter it is BF, whose talk page (examined before today) reveals a continual tendency to take Wikipedia-editing-policy-and-guideline edits personally and to focus on other contributors personally instead of on the edits, despite repeated warnings and blocks for doing so. (There is also evidence that user BF engages in repeated copyright violations in uploading images and other content to Wikipedia space [as documented by multiple warnings previously removed from the current talk page].) In my view, Delaque needs to discourage not encourage such uncivil behavior. Please see "N.B. above on my own talk page. I will not tolerate uncivil personal attacks on me, and I will not discuss this matter any further. I have neither the time nor the desire to do so, having run into time-consuming computer glitches preventing my ability to access the full editing history of articles and talk pages. I can only see one page at a time before my computer freezes up, as I've already explained. I am in the course of attempting to resolve this software problem. (See disc. in next sec.) Furthermore, I suggest that Delaque consider closing the mediation about Harold Pinter, as the previous discussion is already archived (as requested by Delaque) and the article itself regarded as "massively improved" by the initiator of the mediation request, as per the discussion in Talk:Harold Pinter#Repetition and citation style templates / Navigation template. --NYScholar (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will not be editing Wikipedia in the near future due to computer glitches that I am encountering. That should provide a "cooling off" period both for me and for the other user BF. Thanks for your earlier efforts. I do understand your aims, but I don't think that the other user is helping to achieve them by continually personalizing editing changes that were merely designed to correct formatting errors. --NYScholar (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [Update: The computer glitches are interfering with my ability to access full editing histories of articles. I've done all I can about the matter initiated by J, and I am unable to do anymore than I have already done. --NYScholar (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)] [I have subsequently taken some time to correct some relatively-minor formatting inconsistencies in these related articles and responded to J in Talk:Harold Pinter#Wikiquotes about it just prior to logging out again. --NYScholar (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)]

Security software

Hi, Entirely off the subject of Pinter, I read that you are having problems with Norton software. A google on computing forums will show that you are not alone. May I recommend AVG software, available free (basic) here http://free.avg.com/download-avg-anti-virus-free-edition

It was recommended by my University It department for private use. You can upgrade to a full package, but the basic does me fine. It uses far less memory than Norton and you can find more information at AVG (software). Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment and advice, J. Much appreciated. Unfortunately, I followed a link in the past couple of days from Norton to update my Norton package to its version 9.0, and apparently it has serious glitches. I have about 3 months left on my Norton subscription (which I have been paying for periodically to upgrade or update). This current version is just gobbling up CPU usage or creating conflicts that tie up one's online work. So I will need to do something eventually. Resetting some default settings creating glitches every few minutes (or even seconds) has helped somewhat (and only paging through Wikipedia editing histories). But I may have to do a full system restoration; though, in my past experience, that does not always function at all and the restoration points are sometimes very limited. (I usually get an error message saying something like "cannot restore to the point selected.") I may have to uninstall this version of Norton and reinstall an earlier version or install a different program, as you are suggesting. I do like relatively frequent updating of virus definitions, but not this frequent! I will look further into the program you mention (have consulted the Wiki article you link). I generally use whatever Dell offers when I buy a new computer, which came with an earlier version of Norton preinstalled, so that's why I have this package (periodically upgraded/updated). My operating system is XP Professional (with its various upgrades) via Media Center 2005, not Vista. It may be that this Norton package is just not as compatible with XP Professional (Version III +) as it might be w/ Vista. Thanks again. (I did notice on your user page that you are a member of a Wikipedia software project. Definitely not my own specialty!!) --NYScholar (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

Disambig templates

It's generally unnecessary to place links to a disambig page on articles that are already at disambiguated titles, such as The Room (novel), etc. It would be hard for someone to arrive at the article about the novel if they were looking for the article about the band. Propaniac (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Acknowledged. You had, however, left up a red-linked disambig page template on Harold Pinter's play The Room, though you had moved the article to the current name (with "play" in the title) [rendering the old template obsolete]; generally, in Wikipedia, only populated disambig. pages are templated, so when I corrected that one, I added parallel templates to the other pages re: "The Room"; it is conceivable that people just search "The Room" and come up with a bunch of these pages in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned template

Hi NYS, I noticed that you had some trouble with the unsigned template over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination). If you use {{unsigned|kelapstick|18:44, 11 February 2009 }} (not using any wikimarkup in the username field) it produces —Preceding unsigned comment added by kelapstick (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 February 2009. It is a bit of a pain since when you copy over from the revision history the date and time are reversed from how you enter them in the template, but it still works pretty well. Hope this helps!--kelapstick (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I always forget how to do it. I'll save this for future ref.! --NYScholar (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that {{Unsigned2}} allows you to use the time/date and username in reverse order...just found that--kelapstick (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaka Dewapriya (2nd nomination)

I've struck my weak delete !vote, because it was the main stumbling block that was preventing the AFD from being withdrawn, and closed the AFD as withdrawn, in accordance with your requests.

I would however note that the way this AFD has been conducted is a long way wide of the mark when it comes to how to conduct an AFD. Why on earth put an AFD on an article that it is your intent to work on and rewrite, and why mess around, refactoring the discussions into sections like that? AFD discussions should be retained as a threaded discussion, not re-arranged by the nominator into sections to suit himself. Mayalld (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your questions

[Preface: Thanks for your comment. I do understand how the confusion may have arisen. I have reverted your closing the AfD, because you mistakenly state that I withdrew my nomination of the article for deletion (AfD). I had crossed that out and wanted administrators to take a look at the matter over the full course of time after thinking further about it and working more on the article. Below are my responses to your questions/concerns. I think the general problems of how this article got into Wikipedia in the first place, was deleted, and then was reintroduced by a later-deleted user (sockpuppet of subject) need further investigation. I still question the notability of the subject as a subject of an article in Wikipedia. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. When I nominated the article for deletion, as I stated in the nomination explanation at top initially, I did believe (and still to a degree believe) that the subject is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is being manipulated by both the subject (using multiple sockpuppets over the past year) and his cohorts to include an article on him, which he edited himself. I asked for a review.
2. In the meantime, as I had already spent a great deal of my own time attempting to improve that article in the course of learning (1), and seeing a previous deletion of the article discussion only after having done so, I kept working on it to improve it in the case that others might think him more notable than I did and do.
3. It was not I who refactored the project page discussion, it was another user: Diffs.. See the editing history and my reply to that user, who has a notice on his/her talk page stating that s/he no longer supports the project.Diffs.Diffs.
4. After that user refactored the discussion, I followed the way that was done, adding on my own responses to false claims made by another user at the end.
5. I agree w/ your original reasoning in your explanation of why you supported deletion at the time that you did.Edit 269828103
6. I have added more sources for verification, but many of them are from the self-published Website of the subject. If the subject is already deemed notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, using such sources is within editing policies as long as the presentation of the sources is neutral. I attempted to make the article a more neutral presentation than it had been when edited by the pro-Sri Lankan editors and also corrected the non-idiomatic English throughout it. --NYScholar (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I did not withdraw my nomination of the article for deletion, as you stated in closing. I crossed that out, because I still have grave doubts about the manipulation of Wikipedia to include an article on this subject by the subject himself and (apparently) others who appear to be working on his behalf. --NYScholar (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that an administrator needs to do a "check user" on the various screennames used over the past year that are listed on the article talk page at top in the headers and the more recent editors of the article who have taken material from the subject's Website and Blog and inserted it without acknowledging such uses of those sources (and without quotation marks as well--i.e., plagiarism) into the article, so that it mostly reflected his point of view on himself. [Aware of the possibility that the outcome of the nomination for deletion might be to "keep" the article in Wikipedia despite the concerns stated by me and others (over the past year and recently), I attempted all along to redress those problems in the re-editing of the article, as Schmidt recognized in his own comments in the review. Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) [clarifications. --NYScholar (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]

<sigh> You requested that it be closed, then you crossed it out, and asked further down the page what the procedure for closing the AfD was, and did it have to run for 5 days. It still looked like a request to close the AfD to me.

THAT is part of the problem with this AfD. You keep changing your mind, and you keep adding more and more verbosity to it. It has become hopelessly confused. You also seem to want to make the AfD encompass a whole range of other questions about user behaviour, which are totally outside the remit of AfD.

Finally, regardless of whether I was mistaken in closing the AfD, please note that only an admin can reverse a NAC. Once I had closed the debate (correctly or otherwise), you should NOT have undone that closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 February 2009

Again, as I said, I do understand what led to the confusion, but I had crossed out the request quite a long time before you closed the matter and your statement that the nominator (I) had "withdrawn" the AfD just was inaccurate. Because you yourself by closing it as a non-administrator had not really followed the procedure for a controversial/contentious article and misstated my intention in asking for "administrative" review of the closure situation, I thought it wise to un-archive it, as it had been archived by way of misinterpretation.

Since I un-archived it, a couple of other users have stated their positions, so I think it is useful to have as many views as possible, given the complexity of this AfD and the machinations that occurred in the editing of the article by the subject himself and sockpuppets of the subject. Most recent user still does not seem to recognize that at least one of the books is self-published, which lessens its notability, and that most of the sources are not necessarily notable as they are repeating the subject's own point of view on himself through interviews conducted for publicity purposes. Nevertheless, I am happy to have all of the responses, as I have put a lot of time into trying to make the article as fully sourced as possible, and if it is kept, it will at least be kept as a result of readers' being able to see the nature of the sources through the full citations format.

Thank you again for your initial review and for the rest of the time that you have spent on this matter. I do appreciate it. I don't think it hurts, however, to leave the matter open a bit longer (another day or two--the 5 or 7 day period (for a controversial article). --NYScholar (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[Thanks also for reverting your own earlier closure, under these circumstances of the previous misinterpretation of my intention as nominator. I do appreciate that. I only just realised that you did it around time your made your most recent comments above. I hadn't yet realized that when I responded just above. --NYScholar (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

MLA

(Re: The MLA Style Manual and MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers --NYScholar (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia articles normally use footnotes and a references section. I'm just making the articles follow that norm. I ask you to review my edit comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a style guide article. It is intended to illustrate the style. It already has a "Notes" section; your changes are amounting to vandalism of the article. Please stop. --NYScholar (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such "Norm"; Wikipedia "layout" has options, and this article follows the one that is most suitable for its subject. Please desist. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) [Directed user C. to WP:CITE in talk page discussions. --NYScholar (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

Apologies

My sincere apologies regarding the MLA incident, I had not read Wikipedia:Citing sources and just was going off of what appeared to be the norm on other articles, but that was incorrect as obviously policy trumps intuition. Sorry for the inconvenience. Now I know about the citation policy for the future. Best of luck on improving the articles back to their pre-copyvio-reversion quality. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated!!! --NYScholar (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter and MLA citations in general

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't think you have someone attacking you here. Instead there appears to have been a disagreement and again, due to your style of communication (which you were supposed to be working on) things have escalated and both sides are now upset and frustrated.

You seem to prefer the MLA citation format and are, for all practical purposes, insisting it be used on pages that you re-format. This is a problem that's been brought up to you many times - regardless of how right you think a certain action is, you need to listen and work with other editors. The fact that you are having this dispute currently on more than one article is a serious concern. If you are running in to opposition in multiple places, that's a good indication that your actions do not have a consensus and you should immediately stop.

Other editors have objected to the change for various reasons and whether or not you meant it, the tone of your response comes across as condescending and dismissive. You have also fallen back into the style of leaving multiple long posts for every change and discussion. This makes it very difficult for other editors to communicate with you and understand your points.

It seems like you need to take a step back from this issue. Shell ^babelfish 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My perspective on the above comment

I really must set the record straight here, Shell.

For Harold Pinter MLA Style (format of citations and bibliography) has been the prevailing style since it passed its "good article" review with that style in October 2007.

There was no "change" in the MLA style format of the article between October 2007 and when J. began complaining about it after Pinter's death in late December 2008. [Emphasis up front. Please see rest of comment composed earlier. Thank you.--NYScholar (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)]

Further information (if needed)

"You seem to prefer the MLA citation format and are, for all practical purposes, insisting it be used on pages that you re-format.":

That may be J.'s claim, but it is not true.

I do not use MLA Style for every article that I work on, or even most of them, even when I create articles. I follow the prevailing citation style if it is consistent; or I provide a consistent style, often citation templates (for over a year or two--ever since I mastered how to do them). (See the articles mentioned on my user page and go through my contributions history from 2005 to the present.)

For Harold Pinter MLA Style (format of citations and bibliography) has been the prevailing style since it passed its "good article" review with that style in October 2007.

There was no "change" in the MLA style format of the article between October 2007 and when J. began complaining about it after Pinter's death in late December 2008.

[Except that, after J. started changing formats of citations in Bibliography for Harold Pinter to 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual (published in spring 2008 and not to take effect in MLA publications until 2009), then I attempted to correct J.'s errors and to maintain the 3rd ed. format. J. removed all the angle bracketed URLs; but 3rd ed. MLA style recommends adding them if they might change and it might be helpful to readers to have them. I went along w/ J.'s changes to 3rd ed. and have maintained it since then. Later, J. posted further complaints about parenthetical referencing, without knowing that it is used throughout Wikipedia in many articles (both MLA style and APA [some call Harvard] style.]

Your comments re: what J. is doing (e.g., listing links to comments about me in Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter) do not take into account the fact that J. has been focusing specifically on me (a contributor) and not on the actual editing comments that I make, taking personally comments about content that are not about J. but are about the content or format of the article or section of article discussed on the talk pages.Diffs.

I have stepped back, and every time I return, I see more of J.'s attempts to focus on me.

What about J.'s "style of communication"?

J.'s behavior has proved detrimental for every article where I have encountered J. J. appears to be following me around, searching out information about me, and even linking to old out-of-context complaints about me that have been resolved in the past.

The only opposition that I have seen in Harold Pinter between October 2007 (good article review passing) and late Dec. 2008 has been instigated and continued by J. (There was one other editor who also made outrageous personal statements about me that should have been struck out and that were not. The user who "opened" the mediation that J. posted never returned to respond to my concerns and never closed it.)

J. would not accept another editor's comment in the RfC that J. posted in Talk:Harold Pinter that the MLA Style format (a simple kind of parenthetical referencing) is "reasonable" for an article on a writer who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature (see Talk:Harold Pinter for that first responder's response.

Author-date (APA) is simply not useful for that article; its subject is a humanities subject and its sources are mostly print publications.(See Parenthetical referencing. [See its talk page, where some users had pointed out to others that there are more than one style of parenthetical referencing: one common for social sciences subjects and another for humanities (and the arts)--e.g., MLA, Chicago (in the sections on Humanities style). Author-date is used in APA style; it is not used in MLA style; both APA and MLA use parenthetical referencing.]

I have already supplied links to online articles as a convenience (not strictly speaking "convenience links" in sense Wikipedia:Convenience links states; but links to accommodate readers (like J. [based on his/her comments]) who are not familiar with parenthetical referencing enough (or were not earlier) to know that there are two main /kinds: author-date ("APA style", also called "Harvard style") and author-title or author-page (MLA style, Chicago (for articles and books in the humanities), etc.).

Subsequently, J. single-mindedly and single-handedly took further out-of-context remarks about Harold Pinter--completely misrepresenting the situation--and brought it to the talk pages of other articles, like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing (cf. Talk:Parenthetical referencing) and project pages, seeking support in an editing dispute. That is also not within Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines. The people posting there were not aware of the contexts of J.'s involvement in an editing dispute (which J. began in late December 2008) in Harold Pinter or in The arts and politics about parenthetical referencing.

(I spent a lot of time in the past week or two trying to correct the errors in some of those articles; they were very misleading: see Parenthetical referencing (an article, not WP or Wikipedia guidelines) and Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing (an "essay", not policy and not guidelines).)

[I did all that work for the benefit of users (like J.) who are apparently still "ignorant of" (do not "know") the protocols of parenthetical referencing and the fact that endnotes ("content notes") are used in concert with parenthetical referencing in almost all documentation systems now (inc. both APA, MLA, Chicago (and Turabian which is based on Chicago), and those deriving from various "Harvard" systems, which is not affiliated with Harvard College or Harvard University). Pointing out that the complaints of users like J. about the use of both endnotes and parenthetical referencing result from their "ignorance of" or "ignorance about" bibliographical and citation documentation systems is not a personal attack and not name-calling (as J. states when J. accuses me of name-calling). It is simply a statement of fact; when someone does not "know" something, one is "ignorant of" it; there is no value judgment implied in that statement. It is a matter of fact. I am sorry that J. mistook what I intended to say. But I had already explained what I meant, and J. just kept (recently) sarcastically referring to J.'s own "ignorance" and "stupidity", which I never said. I was referring only to J.'s (and other) users' lack of knowledge ("ignorance of") the actual style guidelines for parenthetical referencing in many current citation and documentation systems, including many options used in Wikipedia. As the antidote to ignorance is knowledge, I added the necessary information to articles and talk pages defining and relating to Parenthetical referencing.

(cont.) I will not use the words ignorance or ignorant in talk pages in the future, as it appeared to set J. off on a vendetta against me and repeated references to my being "arrogant" or having "arrogance" or being "condescending"; I am none of those things. There appears to be a great deal of insecurity among users of Wikipedia, and they tend to attack others who present information that they do not know, in a manner that takes personally what is not stated in personal terms. In common usage, ignorance is lack of knowledge. I find that users in Wikipedia are not always secure in their own knowledge of writing and editing protocols and tend to be extremely defensive when gaps in such knowledge are pointed out in attempts to correct and improve Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia as a result. (added --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)).

(cont.) I will try to be more sensitive so as not to unintentionally offend the egos of these other users. As Shell has already suggested, I do not intend to offend anyone. Internet communications are frequently misinterpreted because "tone of voice" is an ambiguous matter in such communications; people often misinterpret one's "tone" and assume that they know what it is, when they do not. --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)]

Though I have tried to assume good faith on the part of J. (WP:AGF), it is clear to me that J. is not currently acting "in good faith" (in relation to my editing of Wikipedia and J.'s filing of all kinds of administrative complaints directed against me in very personal terms); instead, it appears to me that J. is trying to "win" a battle that does not even exist (from my own perspective as an editor who is also a person).

Talk:The arts and politics was linked in Art, Truth and Politics, Pinter's Nobel lecture, in the "See also" and that is how I first noticed it; I worked on it to make its initially inconsistent references (the creator of the article had errors of documentation throughout it--inconsistencies of format) consistent both with its disciplinary subject (art, later the arts, part of the humanities, not Social sciences) and to improve the development of the article. J.'s additions there appeared to slant the article toward UK issues involving bands, skewing the original direction of the article toward less neutral point of view; I tried to restore neutral point of view and corrected the inconsistencies in citations used in it (by developing one consistent format consistently and provided the Style Sheet so others would be able to know what it is).

J's continuing opposition to any use of MLA Style (a kind of parenthetical referencing used in the humanities) anywhere in Wikipedia is what fuels the animus against me there and after that.

Editing Wikipedia is not about "winning" battles in contests with other contributors. It is supposed to be about improving articles.

There is no doubt in my mind and there was no doubt in the "good article" reviewer's mind, that my work on Harold Pinter, in collaboration with the good article review, improved the article. (I've already provided the link to that "good article review" discussion in Talk:Harold Pinter#Good article review.)

After Pinter's death (24 Dec. 2008), J. entered the article and has been engaged in edit warring ever since, there and in every other article where J. enters the editing process (it appears to me): I see evidence of J.'s filing of complaints against other editors in Wikipedia project pages since J.'s reentry as an editor to Wikipedia (close to that date).

In my experience with J. since then, J's behavior is not collaborative behavior. It is contentious behavior. The statement that J. states re: the "conflict" with me in J.'s request for a review of him/herself as editor is false: J. never "apologized" (to me one would be led to believe) for the outrageous personal attacks which you warned J. about. I received no such apology. J. simply deleted your warning from his/her talk page without complying with it after that, since J. continued after that to focus on me as a contributor instead of on the content of the edits.Diffs

This kind of behavior on J.'s part--the continual filing of still further mediation or other formal types of review requests about me--despite the acknowledgment J. made in the first one that J. found Harold Pinter improved--is disruptive editing.

I think, Shell, that before you accept what J. is saying, you need to examine the full record.

J. posts no "differences" which are required in such procedings. I have posted the links to the differences that I was referring to in my comment in your talk page (recently and a while ago, but got no response then) and repeated one of them above.

It is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior for J. to go into talk pages about various articles and subjects (e.g., Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter) and post strings of links to complaints about me by other people.Diffs. That is an outright violation of WP:NPA. I explained that when I removed it, and J. reverted that. I removed the offensive and irrelevant posting of all those links about a contributor (me) again: according to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (based on the "Exceptions" given there) one can remove irrelevant material from talk pages, even if they are posted by another user. I cited that section in the past. It is common to remove irrelevant material from talk pages based on those guidelines.]

I have done my best to avoid engaging in the same incivil behavior that I perceive J. engaging in. I do not focus on J. in my comments about my editing changes. When I think it necessary, I comment on the reasons that I am making edits and cite the WP and guidelines that pertain to them: e.g., Wikipedia:Dead links or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But I do have a right to remove the links that J. has added focusing on me as a contributor from Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter.

As a result of my experience with J., I do not find J. an editor whom I feel that I can work with; due to the methods and tactics that J. is using or attempting to use and the belligerent attitude toward me, I do not feel comfortable communicating with J. at all any more.

In my experience of J.'s talk page conduct since late December, such conduct is simply not conducive to improving Wikipedia. Speaking for myself, I do not want to work further with J. [or with other editors who behave in that manner]. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on Harold Pinter (beginning around 2006) (and, later, the split off section, now called Bibliography for Harold Pinter, which grew out of the "good article" review suggestions) to bring them (and their interlinked Wikipedia articles, which are sections of Harold Pinter) through a "good article" review (in 2007; working on it since then to continue to update it and its sources).

J. is not a "good article" reviewer and even appeared to be questioning whether the article passed a "good article" review. It did. Even after I supplied the link to the good article reviewer's talk page discussion, J. did not and still does not acknowledge that the MLA Style has been a format that passed the "good article" review.

As one who worked closely with the good article reviewer in that process, I know what the intentions were for improving the article, and I have kept them in mind in updating the article. (Opposition from users like J. first appeared after Pinter's death, after 24 Dec. 2008.)

The proposal currently in Harold Pinter is an attempt to continue that "good article" process, as the article has become longer after Pinter's death and (in my view recently) needs reorganization via a split (I think).

J. appears to agree: Talk:Harold Pinter#Proposal re: Harold Pinter#Civic activities and political activism. (J. wrote that after I objected to the personal attacking of me throughout other talk pages; e.g. Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter.)

But I will not be able to work with J. due to the continuing personal attacks (in various places and in various ways). I hope that J.'s recent attempts will not result in my inability to continue to work on the articles of interest to me in Wikipedia.

Your impression that J. has not engaged in personal attacks is, in my view, incorrect. In my view, J. has done that and will continue to do that if J. is not reminded of the policy stated in WP:NPA (at v. beginning and throughout) and specifically WP:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable: the policy clearly states to focus on the content not on the contributor.Diffs. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[Please excuse the typographical errors in the above; I had a publishing deadline to meet between yesterday and today, and met it, but that has left me very tired. The confrontational attitude of users like J. I find extremely debilitating and counterproductive and extremely uncongenial. --NYScholar (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)]

[Before anyone takes me further to task for writing this long explanation, I would suggest that everyone keep in mind that these matters are complicated and involve over three years of editing of Harold Pinter, a "good article" review, which it passed, and many derogatory personal comments made about me as a contributor and many negative characterizations of my editing style and writing (pejorative terms) in several talk pages of several articles by J. as well as a "mediation" that was resolved but not closed and that J. has now escalated in still another administrative filing as well as a review of J.'s own editing that J. filed, focusing in it more on me than it does on J. I must say: I do not see "good faith" operating there. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)]

"It seems like you need to take a step back from this issue." Nevertheless, I will try to take your advice and do that! --NYScholar (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't even begin to express how disappointing it was to see this response. Your response serves only justify your behavior in the current situation and shift blame to others. It repeats several erroneous conclusions on your part and makes the same tired accusations that many editors have seen you use each time you get into a dispute. You were given a mentor as a "last chance" to avoid a community ban - if you have no intention of ceasing the behavior that brought you to this point, I'm not certain there's much left to do. The current problems:

• While it is true that written communication can be problematic, most editors here work to find a way of expressing themselves that allows them to work cooperatively with others. Many editors over an extended period of time have expressed concerns about your mode of communication; outside editors have reviewed the situation and agreed that your style of communication needs changing. Despite this, you persistently claim that the miscommunication is the fault of others and haven't made a substantive attempt to change your style of communicating. It is your responsibility to ensure that other editors understand you and to clear up any misunderstandings that arise - this means that you must drastically change your current method of communication.
• Wikipedia works by a consensus of editors. Your typical mode of behavior during a dispute has been described as intractable and even condescending; editors trying to work with you feel that you are inflexible and unwilling to listen to the input of others. This behavior has become clear again during this dispute - you have posted many long-winded, diatribes explaining why your view is the only correct one and have insisted on your version despite the input of various other editors. In order to edit on Wikipedia you must find a way to productively discuss differences with other editors and be willing to find compromises.
• When in a dispute, you are quick to claim that others are focusing on you or attacking you. Frequently, this is not the case and continuing to make such claims (especially after others tell you that you are mistaken) serves only to allow you to avoid substantive discussion of the actual issues at hand. Other editors can and may point out when your behavior is problematic - this is not a personal attack or even necessarily inappropriate. Instead of deleting the material or warning other editors needlessly, try considering what others are saying and changing your communication or behavior appropriately.

Simply put, you must find an appropriate way to resolve differences of opinion when they arise. Should you continue to show no change in your ability to handle disputes, it will require me to indicate that the mentorship has ultimately been unsuccessful. Shell ^babelfish 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Shell: I just returned briefly and found this response. I too am extremely disappointed. I am not "shifting blame" to others. I have already accepted my own responsibility for my own comments. (It's in the longer explanation [click on "show"]; it's in bold font there.) The rest of this response to you can also be accessed by clicking on "show.")

Further information (if needed)

I have already understood and accepted what you have said about me. But communication is a two-way street, and the the other party here (J.) does also have a role in communicating with me (and others too).

I have tried for several weeks to get your attention by posting requests for assistance on your talk page since the warning that you placed on J.'s talk page. But I have gotten no response until just yesterday. I really haven't been able to get your attention until just now, despite those prior messages on your talk page.

I thought that perhaps you might have been away. Please check your archive for my previous requests for help.

I don't think your "mentorship has ultimately been unsuccessful"; but I do think that you haven't been around to provide a perspective on my concerns of these continuing problems with J. (through January, February, and now half of March) relating mostly to Harold Pinter; all along I have been asking for further help from you and was concerned about being "on my own" with this situation.

Please examine also not only J.'s complaints about me, but also the kinds of responses that I have been getting from J.: they are archived in Talk:Harold Pinter and are in Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter and in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. Some of them are nasty and sarcastic; recently, J. thanked me for being courteous as usualDiffs.; on the surface it looks like a compliment; but [given its context--written while the writer has posted notices claiming the opposite of me in a (now still current talk page) RfC, the earlier mediation request, and the more recent WP/ANI, and later comments also claiming the opposite about me not being "courteous" "as ever", etc.], I believe that it is sarcastic and not what it seems to be. [Though, of course, I could be misinterpreting J.'s "tone of voice" there; such is the ambiguity of online communication; the bolded references to "ignorance" and "stupidity" in another response to me Diffs. just led me to "hear" sarcasm when I [first read or re-read] the [actually earlier] "compliment". Or, maybe J. was actually taking a new and more civil approach; it would be nice to believe the latter.]

I do not think that those comments are made "in good faith": nevertheless, I have not replied to them in kind with any degree of sarcasm on my side. I try to comment as matter of factly as possible. For anyone to think I am "condescending" is really also a function of how they read, not just how I write. "Tone of voice" indicates "attitude"; but it is very easy to misinterpret on the internet. If all of you (including you Shell) are going to assume that I am being condescending, that is what you are going to see (or hear in your mind's ear). But that is not how I am writing. If I cite policies and guidelines, it is only because I think that the user who has asked a question or questioned an edit is unaware of it: like Wikipedia:Dead links, which states very clearly not to remove (delete) entire source citations from articles but to replace the links (or just cite printed versions).

When I try to explain my edits, I am not saying that they are the "only" "right" ways to edit an article; but, when someone has questions about them, I respond with answering the questions. Not to respond is to appear uncivil (to appear to be ignoring concerns).

In Harold Pinter there already is a prevailing citation format (7 Oct. 2007 to 24 Dec. 2008), and that format is consistent (as it was on Dec. 24, when J. entered that article), then according to WP:CITE and WP:MOS, one continues with it. One does not change a format that has had consensus for over 2 years.

I did not invent such Wikipedia policy and guidelines; I just try to learn what they are and to follow them.

I refer to them when one raises a question that indicates to me that the person is not familiar with the policy and guidelines. If someone points out the policy and guidelines that are the basis for an edit, it is customary to have an acknowledgment. But I have seen no such acknowledgments from J. J. just moves to another thing to complain about. In the few articles on which I have worked that I have encountered J. as an editor, I have seen very little actual contribution to editing articles and a lot of complaining about others' editing (not only mine). (I do not visit articles about Bristol, so I do not know about those.)

I do not think, Shell, that you recognize that since Dec. 24, 2008, I have made many attempts to accommodate J.'s concerns in an entirely civil manner (many editing changes that are just found via editing history and summary and not discussed in talk pages--just done) and still been met with nasty comments, sarcasm, complaints about being "arrogant" or "condescending" (when I still do not believe that I am).

After J. began complaining about parenthetical references being obtrusive, I have moved several parenthetical citations to endnotes where that might seem less obtrusive and only left the briefest ones in the text. Then J. called that an inconsistency; but it is not. Sometime J. is just simply incorrect. That is a case where J. is incorrect. MLA Style citation format (and almost every other format)--in Wikipedia and out of Wikipedia--uses a mixture of both parenthetical citations and "content notes" (footnotes or endnotes) to document articles and to add additional references beyond the parenthetical ones. Many articles in Wikipedia have both (parenthetical citation references in a text and endnotes).

When I pointed that out, instead of acknowledging that that is so (no response), J. then moved on to rehash the very same complaints already addressed in Harold Pinter--an editing dispute already resolved in J.'s mediation request in January, when J. changed my 2nd ed. MLA Style Manual style to 3rd ed. (with many errors that I later corrected). It is then that it began to appear to me even more that J. was "shopping around" project pages with this editing dispute.

After that, I took still more time to adding links for convenience of readers like J., there has been no acknowledgment that I have done that. All of my attempts to listen to and to try to accommodate J.'s concerns while still maintaining the consistency of the prevailing citaiton format of the article have been rebuffed and treated as if they did not even occur.

I have been accused of not responding when I have responded civilly. It is the nature of J.'s comments that they appear to require responses.

I can't be "damned if I do" respond (by trying to answer questions or explain edits when asked to do so) and also "damned if I don't respond" (as if I were ignoring the concerns raised by other editors like J.). I try to be polite and to respond.

Then even you are complaining about that. I really do not know what you want me to do in such situations. Ignoring other users' concerns is really not civil either. (And I have reviewed your previous recommendations.)

Because concerns of editors like J. (who are apparently unfamiliar with the details of citation and bibliographical formats beyond Wikipedia articles) can be based on confusions due to contradictions in peer-edited articles and policy pages in Wikipedia (like the earlier versions of parenthetical referencing), the situations can be quite complicated and it take some time and some words to explain how and why (as in this circumstance).

Removing sources entirely from a bibligraphy or an EL from EL section when the URL has changed (as J. did recently in Harold Pinter (also see Talk: Bibliography for Harold Pinter) is also not in keeping with Wikipedia:Dead links (and WP:CITE and WP:V). I have now pointed it out several times in several ways, because J. just was commenting on me and not recognizing that I am not addressing J. personally, but writing an explanation on a talk page that serves everyone who might be reading J.'s comments. J. is not the only intended recipient; everyone who reads the talk page is. That is why I sometimes start a new section to add a link in a heading or subheading of a talk page to Wikipedia policy/guidelines (It enables anyone who needs to know it to refer to it). I explain edits that are being challenged or that might need further explanation, not every minor edit that I make (which are explained in editing summaries briefly).

I really do not know what to do when even my mentor is not looking at the whole picture. (This one involving Harold Pinter extends from around spring 2006 through now--about 3 years.)

Please examine the situation from Dec. 24, 2008 to now and please keep in mind that the subject of the article died on that date. The article then changed from an article about a living person subject to WP:BLP to an article about a recently-deceased person, and several new users (not editors but readers), including some anon IP users, came to it than had been looking at it before that. Some of them were not particularly interested in working on the article; some of those who changed the article lost source citations and they needed to be restored. They would just delete stuff, including the source citations.

It is not possible to satisfy everyone. The edits that I have made were made in the context of a several weeks long "good article" review that J. seemed to be insinuating did not occur (in effect, suggesting that I was a liar): see part before Talk:Harold Pinter#Good article review. When I gave the link to the good article reviewer's discussion page (which I had to find in her archive), J. did not acknowledge that I had done so. In my mind, that is not civil behavior.

This is not a matter of who is "right" or who is "wrong" in how to edit the article (although sometimes citation matters do have a "right" and a "wrong" format--order of item, punctuation, and so on): matters of formal consistency.

It is a matter of J.'s deciding that the prevailing style format of the article is not to J.'s liking and questioning whether it is "acceptable" when a "good article" review and longstanding consensus occurring from 7 Oct. 2007 through 24 December 2008 already decided that it was both appropriate and acceptable. I consider this insistence on not following the prevailing format a disruption. It is not improving the article to bog us down in continual discussions about this, when the format is consistent.

If several different editors were to change the entire formatting style of the article (which WP:CITE actually says not to do if the citation format is reasonable and consistent), it would result in many more errors and less consistency. It would also not change the fact that many of the citations are to print sources (articles and books) and are part of several sources being referred to in an endnote; there is no other format that I know of used in Wikipedia that would make such references any clearer than they already are. The Bibliography is a split-off section, resulting from the good article review. The article has split-off sections that are part of it. Looking up parenthetical references to sources on a list of Works cited is a frequent procedure in Wikipedia articles.

These are not "personal" matters, and they are not matters of "content". They are matters of citation format (style) for an article on a writer who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005. It is "reasonable" to use MLA Style citation formatting in the article (according to the response that J. got to the RfC.

The first responder to J.'s RfC (see Talk:Harold Pinter stated that the format is "reasonable" though there could be other formats possible (that's the case with almost any article). According to WP:MOS (guidelines), one is supposed to have strong basis for changing it, and there is none here. The user asked what J. would propose as an alternative, and J. did not answer the question. J. never proposed any other citation format for the article. Why should J.'s dislike of and unfamiliarity with a prevailing and consistent format of an article take precedence over longstanding consensus. (If one examines Bibliography for Harold Pinter one will see the largeness of the task of changing everything to a different format. No one has come forward to do all that work. No one has proposed what to change it to.)

[If one is going to suggest "Author-date"--basically APA style or sometimes called "Harvard" style--now found as merely one of the two main style formats in parenthetical referencing)--it is simply not as suitable a style to Harold Pinter as "author-title" (or author-page) (MLA style). Most of the print sources cited in the article also use MLA style; it is a subject in the humanities, and readers are more interested in the names of authors [critics and scholars who write on Pinter in many instances] and titles of their articles and books than the dates when they were published (those are given in the full citations in the attached/interlinked Bibliography).

Featured articles in Wikipedia may privilege "Harvard style" but that may be because the article now called parenthetical referencing (which was called "author-date" prior to its being moved by another editor) gave the (false) impression that that was the only parenthetical referencing style available. It may be that those who deal with feature article reviews have a preference for Harvard style, but that does not make it suitable for every article, and not for articles in literature. British, other European, and Australian Wikipedia editors may be more familiar with Harvard style because the previous emphasis on it in the earlier versions of those articles led featured article reviewers to use it. But not every article is a featured article or ready to go through a featured article review. This one is still in flux, due both to Pinter's relatively-recent death (late Dec. 2008) and the need (I think) to split off a section of the article.]

These contexts are the basis of root problems relating to the communication impasses between me and J. I think that it is important for you to recognize that. This matter is not simply a function of my "style of communication". Explanations of complex interactions in Wikipedia take longer to explain than changing a comma to a semi-colon, etc. This is my talk page, and I understand that I can take the space that I need to respond on it. I am sorry that you and others do not recognize that I am responding in good faith and with an aim to improve Wikipedia.

I have volunteered an enormous amount of time to working on articles in Wikipedia. I do far more editing of articles than commenting on talk pages. It is the contentiousness that I have encountered from J. in the past 3 months that has been slowing me down. I have devoted a lot of time to making corrections to articles relating to style guides and parenthetical referencing because of the confusions that I have perceived in J.'s comments. I do not think that people understand that these are good faith edits and that they are evidence of commitment to quality editing in Wikipedia. There is a great deal of plagiarism in Wikipedia, and it should not exist. By improving the references to "how to avoid plagiarism" in some of these articles (including that one), one can hope to improve the quality of Wikipedia. But a great deal depends on the willingness of Wikipedia editors to follow its policies and guidelines. In order for them to do that, first they need to know what they are and to consult them more often and more carefully. --NYScholar (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Simply put, you must find an appropriate way to resolve differences of opinion when they arise. Should you continue to show no change in your ability to handle disputes, it will require me to indicate that the mentorship has ultimately been unsuccessful."

I will try again further. I would not want you to conclude that "the mentorship has ultimately been unsuccessful." But I would suggest perhaps that we be in more frequent contact toward fulfilling the purpose of achieving greater success. --NYScholar (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Above all else, what you don't seem to understand is that no one wants to read lengthy paragraphs of justification for your behavior; that you now blame this latest in a long line of failures on me is beyond the pale. I apologize that my personal, real life situations prevented me from babysitting your recent behavior, however since we discussed all these same problems in detail when the mentorship started and once since then when you got involved in yet another dispute, you can hardly claim ignorance.

I had hoped that your request for mentorship meant that you intended to make a sincere effort to change the behaviors that led to the community ban discussion. At this point I have little choice but to conclude that you are unable to understand or accept your responsibilities in intra-personal communications with respect to Wikipedia and that further intervention is unlikely to produce a change in the problematic behaviors. Shell ^babelfish 01:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Please scroll down to #Please know below! --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)]

I do understand, Shell. The reason why the material says "Further information (if needed)" is in case you might want to read it.

Further information (if needed)

(cont.) This whole rhetoric of someone "blaming" someone else for matters that involve more than one person and communication difficulties among them in Wikipedia is really a problem. In no way am I "blaming" you (Shell) or anyone else; I am just trying to explain that I have been seeking some assistance with this dispute (which I did not begin) for a long time (nearly 3 months), and that I did not know why I was getting no response (both from you, Shell, and from the user who "opened" the mediation in January and did not respond to requests to strike out what are clearly offensive personal comments about me in it or to "close" it after J. accepted the use of MLA Style in Harold Pinter [mid January 2009]).

(cont.) I just surmised that you were not around to respond. I do not in any way "blame" you for that. Everyone cannot be around here all the time. I myself was away for several days at a time during periods from December through early March. Please know that I have appreciated your efforts all along and I still do. It is still, however, unclear to me when one is expected to respond to a comment in a talk page of an article or project page (or user talk page) in Wikipedia and when not. You advised me not to get involved in talk pages, but I find that sometimes one is asked for responses and that requires responding (getting involved). I could ignore comments addressed to me and not respond, but you have also said that it is a good idea to explain one's edits. Some of this interaction in Wikipedia still needs clarification.

(cont.) The idea that people make comments and that I am not "allowed" to respond is really not within Wikipedia's own user and talk page guidelines. Every time I respond, you find objections to what I say. Yet, as I reread what I say, it seems reasonable to me. I am not "blaming" you or anyone else for having a different perspective than I do. We just have different perspectives.

I'll stay logged out of Wikipedia for an extended period of time. Maybe that will help.

Before I post anything in any [article or project or other user's] talk page in Wikipedia, I will review your comments above and in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 23#Adoption request and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 24#Mentorship.

In the past, you had suggested that I check with you if I had difficulty (or questions):

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

(cont.) I will continue to do that in the future if you are still willing to mentor me. If you are no longer willing to do that, please let me know.

Thanks again for you past help and your more recent replies above. --NYScholar (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please know

Shell: Please know that I did not see your message about having personal matters taking you offline from Wikipedia that you posted somewhat below the top of your user talk page on March 16 until a few minutes ago today ([March 19, 23:16 (UTC)]). I hope that everything works out well. (I returned to try to fix the archive bot myself and removed the sec. addressed to you a few days ago about that.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Further information (if needed)

Response to comments above after taking some time to think further about them

"Wikipedia works by a consensus of editors. Your typical mode of behavior during a dispute has been described as intractable and even condescending; editors trying to work with you feel that you are inflexible and unwilling to listen to the input of others."

In the case of the version of Harold Pinter that has existed (mostly stable) from the end of January 2009 to March 16 2009: there is only one user persisting in questioning the use of MLA Style format in that article's talk page and that is J. I have continuously and continually been "listening to" J.'s "input", responding to it only in good faith, and making many revisions of the article in response to J.'s "input". J. has not acknowledged such revisions or seemed to appreciate the good will and time that it took for me to make them (hours and hours over nearly 3 months). --NYScholar (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It really seems to me that if anyone is being "intractable" about that matter, it is J., not I.

At times other users have "describe[d]" my "typical mode of behavior during a[n editing] dispute" as "intractable and even condescending." But since you (Shell) became my mentor, the only such dispute that anyone has begun involving me is J. (J.'s "Mediation" request; now also J.'s AN/I). J. has done that without posting differences to back up J.'s claims and complaints (in either place). J. takes replies out of context and omits the questions that J. poses and the comments that J. makes that I am responding to.

(cont.) Wikipedia requires "diffs." in such matters and does not accept looking at only one side of a dispute. There are 2 users involved here, J. (initially, as it is J. who began the dispute) and me. It really appears to me in this case that it is J. who is "intractable and even condescending" and very often uncivil. I have tried to remain civil in responding; sometimes that has taken more words than mere retorts or like incivilities would take (see "long-winded" below).

(cont.) Replying in full sentences in polite language and sometimes repeating the same point in more than one way (so that [my intention] it is not mistaken]) does not result in succinctness. [That is true.] On article and project and other users' talk pages, I will try to be more succinct in the future.

"This behavior has become clear again during this dispute - you have posted many long-winded, diatribes explaining why your view is the only correct one and have insisted on your version despite the input of various other editors."

As I say above, I apologize for being "long-winded"; I will try still harder to be more succinct. I have not, however, "insisted on" my "version [of an article or format] despite the input of various other editors."

(cont.) In responding to their questions and/or concerns, I have referred them to information in Wikipedia (articles, project pages, policies, guidelines) which explains why the use of MLA style in the article is "acceptable" (the specific question posed by J. in J.'s "RfC" in Talk:Harold Pinter).

"In order to edit on Wikipedia you must find a way to productively discuss differences with other editors and be willing to find compromises."

I have been trying to "discuss differences with other editors" both "productively" and not only been "willing to find compromises" but I have devised compromises and instituted compromises in my edits (I can supply diffs. if needed; my "compromises" are already pointed out in Talk:Harold Pinter and Talk:The arts and politics (renamed as part of one of those "compromises" from Art and politics after J. added references to UK bands to it). Nevertheless, J. and a few other users recently (following J.'s lead) have taken responses that I have made only in good faith (WP:AGF) and focused far more on how I make them (style) rather than what they state or do ("content"). Often, it appears to me, that they have misinterpreted the content changes. I can post diffs. if needed, but I really think that one can see what has happened if one examines the talk pages (Talk:Harold Pinter and Talk:The arts and politics more carefully and looks not only at my own responses but on others as well to which I am responding.

"When in a dispute, you are quick to claim that others are focusing on you or attacking you. Frequently, this is not the case and continuing to make such claims (especially after others tell you that you are mistaken) serves only to allow you to avoid substantive discussion of the actual issues at hand."

While in your comment above, Shell, you state that "Frequently, this is not the case...", the fact remains that "Frequently" it is the case.

(cont.) There is actually only one particular editing "dispute" (content dispute) that is the subject of J.'s comments directed toward and about me, and that is J.'s objection to the use of MLA Style for formatting citations and bibliography ("Works cited") in two articles: (1) Harold Pinter; and (2) (now entitled) The arts and politics (formerly Art and politics.

(cont.) In a talk page for the latter Talk:The arts and politics, only one other user (who just happened upon the article via a search for Beethoven, apparently), became confused about the use of parentheses and brackets, also questioned their use. (The references to the "convoluted" talk page" would apply to everyone posting on it, and that would include not only me but also J. [and, later, the 3rd user too]).

(cont.) I referred that user to Wikipedia's style guidelines and made a change in a sentence to make their use [of parentheses and brackets] clearer. The user accused me of being condescending because I used the phrase "of course" in pointing out that 4 digits in parentheses are dates, while the fewer than 4 digits are page references. The user kept persisting in focusing on my "tone of voice" ("Condescending") as opposed to what I was actually trying to point out about style guidelines in Wikipedia for use of parentheses and brackets: I believe the user misread the article itself due to reading very quickly instead of reading carefully; the 4-digit numbers following the title of a work dates were and are clearly dates and not page numbers; perhaps I should not have used the phrase "of course"; but to most readers such parenthetical usage of dates would be obvious. Sometimes readers do not read carefully and they misinterpret articles.

(cont.) In the very same comment, I thanked the user for the "productive" part of the comments; but I clarified that I did not consider the comments on me "productive".

(cont.) I don't see how repeatedly focusing on another user's perceived "tone of voice" (perceived but perhaps misperceived) is going to be "productive" in talk pages of articles. (When I found myself doing that (in a couple of article talk pages within the past few weeks), I removed my own comments (also) [with a clear editing summary and/or note in text], as [I thought that] they were moving in an "unproductive" direction on the talk page. See response to your point below.)

"Other editors can and may point out when your behavior is problematic - this is not a personal attack or even necessarily inappropriate."

This "interaction" [among editors] works both ways. If "other editors can and may point out when [my] behavior is problematic - this is not a personal attack or even necessarily inappropriate", so may I "point out when [their] behavior is problematic - this is not a personal attack or even necessarily inappropriate". But, despite the "possibilities" ("can") for such "interaction," focusing more on it than on the "content" of an article or a project page talk page really is not in keeping with the spirit of either the policy statement (right at top) of WP:NPA or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The aim of the policy and guidelines is to focus talk pages of articles and of project pages on improving the content of the articles and the project pages, not to focus on contributors.

(cont.) In response to the mediation request and the RfC posted by J.: In turn, I find the "behavior" of J. to be "problematic" in the editing and talk pages of 2 articles: Harold Pinter and (now) The arts and politics. J. has pointed out that J. finds my "behavior" problematic. I have stated that I don't think that focusing on (mis)perceived "tone of voice" of another contributor's comments is "relevant" to the talk pages of those articles.

"Instead of deleting the material or warning other editors needlessly, …"

The only material that I have deleted is what I and others would consider material not "relevant" to "improving articles". Doing so [removing such "irrelevant" material] follows Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

(cont.) If I thought that I was "warning other editors needlessly," I would not be warning them at all (and I have not posted formal warnings; I have posted preliminary informal warnings: in a section called "Reminder" on a talk page, intended to get it back on the intended subject of the talk page: editing the article so as to improve it (not on contributors). Posting a link to the talkheader's reminder of "Be polite" (WP:CIVIL or to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines or to WP:NPA when the talk page is veering towards incivilities and towards violating those policies and guidelines is simply a way to get it back on track; it is not "needless", in my view (and that of the editor who reverted the archiving of Talk:Harold Pinter; it is needed (necessary). If it were in my view "needless", I would not be posting such a "reminder"; I post the "reminder" only in good faith (WP:AGF), with only concern for improving the article (or project page).

"try considering what others are saying and changing your communication or behavior appropriately."

'I will do what you suggest. [That is:] I will review their comments on a talk page or in an administrative project page request prior to posting further comments on talk pages of article pages and project pages.)

[Note: I have posted these responses only on my own talk page, not on the talk pages of articles or project pages or any other user's talk page. I intend my responses as part of my communication with my (present or past) mentor, Shell, who has posted a notice on March 16 saying that she would be away from Wikipedia for personal reasons and that one could e-mail her if necessary. I do not communicate with Wikipedia through e-mail due to privacy concerns, however, so this is my only means of communicating with Shell.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear - I will not be able to mentor you further. Instead of taking my advice on board, you have again made a point by point rebuttal explaining why everyone other than yourself is wrong. When I (and many others) clearly say "Editors are not attacking you" and your only response is simply "Yes they are and here's a long explanation why you're wrong", there's just no middle ground to work with. Since this doesn't seem to be something you are interested in changing at this time, there is little more I can do to assist you. Shell ^babelfish 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to learn that you feel that way about it, Shell, and that you perceive everything that I have written as "rebuttal", when I perceive my responses to your earlier comments merely as civil replies designed to clarify (made without judgmental terms like "right" and "wrong").

(cont.) Thank you for your past mentorship. I have removed the adoption program template from my talkpage header (which you had kindly shown me how to create). Given the past situation regarding my previous adoption by Ecoleetage, and the complaints that ensued when he did not inform John Carter that he had felt that I no longer needed his mentorship and was withdrawing, I think it is perhaps necessary for you to inform John Carter that you are no longer willing to mentor me and that you feel that your mentorship was unsuccessful and why. Thank you again. (I am trying here to be succinct.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update:) I posted a message to John Carter, in case Shell doesn't have time; it's in User talk:John Carter#Welcome back and notification. --NYScholar (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Shell: I hope that the personal situation that you refer to on your talk page on March 16th (that I saw first on the 19th) is resolved to your satisfaction and that all is well. Thank you again.

I will place a "talkback" template on your current talk page to alert you that I have seen your comments, and, unless you have more to add to them, I will be considering this exchange (from top section to here) finished, and I will archive it intact [in 48 hours from this comment if the bot doesn't function to do that]. --NYScholar (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Actually, I am "interested in changing" the way I respond in talk pages at this time, and I will strive much harder to do so. While I am away, I will think more about how to follow Shell's previous advice better. --NYScholar (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, thanks for explaining

Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

Jezhotwells (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Art, Truth and Politics

Howdy! I apologize since this goes back a while. On the Art, Truth and Politics article, I notice you added the phrase used with permission to a fair use image. Do you remember what was going on there, and/or do you have some means of verifying the permission? If the copyright holder has agreed to license the image under an appropriate license we should probably change it on the image page. Many thanks and keep up the great work! --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. (No apology necessary at all!) The permission was granted to me to publish the image in information about the DVD in private e-mail correspondence with Illuminations; however, I do not use e-mail in or with Wikipedia due to privacy issues. I will try to remove the phrase "used with permission", since the image has a fair-use rationale as a promotional DVD cover, and "permission" is not needed for this usage of it (to illustrate the work (DVD recording of the Lecture discussed in the article). Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Revised by adding an infobox template. Hope that solves the problem. --NYScholar (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks. It wasn't so much a problem as just trying to get the same information in both places (the article and the image page). You're right that it would be fine with fair use. Thanks again and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! --NYScholar (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS section

Hi, I never intended it to be much more than my opening. I have no objection it it's put on my talk page (perhaps the first entry might remain with a link), or inserted into a [can't think of term] openable–closeable tag at MOS talk. Or it can stay as it is. Cheers. Tony (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)