User talk:NYScholar/Archive 20

Request

Hi. There are some fact tags at the Heath Ledger article, are you able to fix that up? He was a lovely fellow, we should make the article as good as possible. Regards, cygnis insignis 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was not logged on to Wikipedia and just saw this message. Sorry that I cannot be of further help with this request. I have already spent way too much time documenting that article and attempting to make it "as good as possible." I am only checking into Wikipedia sporadically to check my very limited watch list (from which I have already deleted Heath Ledger and Talk:Heath Ledger. (See "busy" template and previous messages). Some time ago, I added the "fact" (missing citations) tags to items that were inserted by others without any sources cited to verify them. I don't know where the others got the material or if it is accurate. I suggest that you look at the editing history to find who added the statements originally and contact them on their talk pages. If one cannot verify the information claimed in the statements with reliable third-party published sources (creating citations for them in the currently-prevailing format [citation templates]), one should delete it entirely until one can. I will be archiving my talk page page on Monday, as stated above. Please see my "N.B." and ask for help on the talk page of the article itself. Thanks. (I am logging out of Wikipedia to have dinner and to continue doing other pressing non-Wikipedia related projects, etc.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Last night I copied the above exchange and posted it in the talk page of the article, Talk:Heath Ledger.

After archiving my current talk page (see archive 19), I added a comment in further response to Cygnis insignis there, and I also added a source citation and merged two sections into the first section (see editing history summary of that article). . . . --NYScholar (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [updated in "Logging Out" in current talk page.] (Updated and archived. --NYScholar (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [Corr. w/ old sig. & UTC from prev. editing history of current talk page.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

Looking at the flurry of recent edits to Oklahoma City bombing, I think we have a problem. Some of the newly added text (and sources) appear to contradict existing text and sources (such as the number of barrels in the Ryder truck and their contents). Likewise some of the new sources appear to be used for WP:SYN (such as the thermobaric effects of the explosion). As someone who helped bring this article up to GA status, could you review the article and let me know if I am mistaken? Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the technical details that you mention, I don't think that I can be of help. I suggest that you try accessing the original Denver Post Oklahoma Bombing Case site, where the court proceedings relating to the cross-examination on the explosive materials may be found (perhaps archived via the Wayback Machine). I'm mostly offline these days working on getting several longterm projects to press. (Please see "N.B." above. Thanks.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA Page

Dear NYScholar, I don't remember if which way, if any, you're edits to CAMERA tended to lean. And fortunately, I don't think it really matters, because you appear to be clearly interested in Wiki running the way it's supposed to. So I request your help, please, for one specific aspect of the CAMERA wiki page. Oh, there are many aspects in which I'm embroiled in disputes over, but this particular aspect relates to you. Some time ago, you weighed in on the question of whether Ed Koch's praise of the organization should be included on that page, concluded that it should if the language correctly conveyed the context of that praise, and made changes that had remained on the article... until recently. Now, there are a few individuals who seem intent on editing the article with the explicit goal of delegitimizing the organization, wiki guidelines be damned. To that effect, they have erased your language, and in fact erased the entire reference to Koch. This was done, it seems, so that they can rename the Praise/Criticism section to Testimonials on CAMERA website/Criticism. Further delegitimization. I realize that you might not like CAMERA. But could you please weigh in on this specific argument, for the more lofty goal of Wiki sanity? (I already know what will happen if I try to change it back to how it was... it will be reverted, in turn, by three editors, and I'll be unable to do anything without 3R problems. Your help and thoughts are appreciated. Gni (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what disputes you are referring to; please see my reply to prev. sec. of comments; I'm offline working on trying to meet multiple press deadlines. I am not really an expert on CAMERA and a long time ago was put off by the kinds of edit warring going on in articles relating to that subject and others; I have not been editing it for a very long time. I suggest that you might be able to get help from administrators with this kind of problem if you leave a message on their talk pages. If you think that irresponsible editing is going on, your best bet is probably to bring the problem to the attention of administrators (more than one) and possibly to leave a complaint in a proper administrative reporting page. I don't recall the Ed Koch situation; if/when I have time later to look again at that article, I may do it; but, given my own recent unpleasant experiences editing Wikipedia, I do not want to become embroiled in any editing disputes. I just don't have the time or interest in that kind of editing. Thanks for understanding. --NYScholar (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a specific complaint about an edit or reversions, I think that you might want to post a specific link to the "Diffs." from the editing history in a report in WP:3RR, if it comes to that. I can't find what you are talking about in the time I have to look for it. Instead of reverting others' changes, I suggest that you sit back and see what happens to the article over some period of time (over 24 hours); if others engage in an editing war involving violations of WP:3RR or in violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (a core policy), then there are administrative channels for reporting those problems. Sorry not to be able to be or more help. (In passing, it seems that the article may be unbalanced and a misrepresentation of CAMERA from a non-neutral pov (when I just looked at it), given deletion of documented material from it; I don't know about the "Koch" quotation; you need to discuss it in the talk page of the article and to provide links to sources and "diffs." to back up your recommended changes to the article. Try not to engage in edit warring; it just creates problems for everyone.)--NYScholar (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying despite the deadline pressures. I certainly understand why you'd want to avoid these type of edit disputes/warring, which certainly do seem like a (very frustrating) waste of time. Could you please just briefly elaborate on what you mean by the "diffs."? Thx again, and good luck. Gni (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Re: "diffs.": Throughout Wikipedia you will find editors referring (through abbreviation) to "diffs.": meaning: "(Difference between revisions)" (that one finds via "comparing" edits in editing "history.)

In filing administrative reports (such as violations of WP:3RR and in referring to changes that one is talking about), one documents the "diffs." accessible via editing "history" in every Wikipedia page; one simply clicks on "history" in a Wikipedia article like CAMERA, and, in this case, locates the last edit that oneself or another has made--in my own attempt to respond to you, I chose last 500 and last 150 edits and found the last time that I myself had edited the article was October 29, 2006 [Note that was almost a year and a half ago]; then one uses one's mouse to select the edits to "compare"--in this case, I selected mine of October 29, 2006 and the most recent (top) one and the "diffs." popped up: violà: (Diffs.). (The link is in the URL address box at top of browser; I copied and pasted it here for your information. You can do the same process to find "diffs." with any two edits, compare them and one uses the "diffs." to document reverts; it is a violation of WP:3RR (generally; there are exceptions) to engage in changing other editors' work more than 3 times within any 24 hour period. Please see WP:3RR and follow the link to how to file reports for suspected violations of WP:3RR. Administrative arbitration measures in Wikipedia require that one document the "diffs." in describing one's complaints. You can practice comparing "diffs." between edits in CAMERA for further information as to how the edits actually compare. If you comment on the article in talk pages of the articles or users' talk pages (as you do above), in order to indicate to others precisely what edit you are talking about, you need to provide a link to the "diffs." (as I have just done above).

Note also that there are "(198 intermediate revisions not shown.)" between my edit of October 29, 2006 and today's date; I did not make the edits that show up in red; one goes to "older edit" and "new edit" throughout the editing history to see the changes made throughout the entire history of the article. One clicks on "earliest" edit to find the state of the page when it was created, and then follows the path of edits consecutively (or for certain dates) throughout the history. The pattern of edits becomes clear through doing that. [added. --NYScholar (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]

See my edits, e.g., between Oct. 27 and Oct. 29, 2006: (Diffs.) for the changes that I was making at that time. I have not worked on that article since that period in Oct. 2006, I think. But there could be edits that I missed seeing, as I don't have time to do a more thorough search now. If you want to document your own editing history for that article, you need to examine your own first edits and then scroll through and find the "diffs." for your own screen name. (If you used an IP add. at points as well, you need to locate it too. All edits relating to your IP add, whether using a screen name or an IP add to log on, count in relation to WP:3RR.) One is not to use "sockpuppets" and doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Protection and semi-protection from IP editing (and IP sockpuppetry) can be requested if edit warring by anon. IP users is occurring.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps.

PLEASE NOTE: This is all I have time to reply. Shortly after this I will be logged out of Wikipedia. (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TDK

"Aggressive" needs a cite as how it's more active than any other blockbuster movie. Alientraveller (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Aggressive" is simply a synonym for sense of "viral" in "viral marketing": Please comment about editing the article on the talk page of the article. I'm logging out of Wikipedia. See "N.B." above. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Finally logging out that is! [Will archive the current discussions; "At" has seen this comment, as the disc. continues in the talk page. I'm not sure about earlier commenter. Will give another 24-48 hours [from 3/15/2008, i.e.] for that to be seen before archiving. ---NYScholar (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC) [added bracketed explanation; my last comment to that user (gni) was posted on 3/15/2008. I archived it about 24 hours later; gni can find it here if s/he looks in clearly-identified archive if s/he hasn't seen it yet. It was merely an explanation of "diffs." in response to a request for one (if I had time; I took the time to explain for him/her).]

Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature

Your comments would be appreciated in Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature about the "Most awarded countries" table since you previously commented on this issue in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. A similar table was removed from the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Prize in Physics articles in December 2007 but has been reinstated in the Nobel Prize in Literature article. –panda (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of the article as requested. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Seems you have been here a while, so I wont leave you a template message. This sort of report, doesn't warrant a block, not yet anyway. They haven't edited in 3 hours, and AIV is generally for users that are actively vandalising right now. As the note says, "the vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop.". Also, they didn't have enough warnings to be blocked, I've warned them. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I just needed your advice. Thanks for posting the above and your reply in the AIV page. I do understand your points. (I'll archive this exchange after you've had a chance to see this reply. Thanks again for the swift response.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

en dash character entity

Just FYI, the reason I use "–" rather than "–" is that it is very difficult to tell the difference between hyphens and en dashes when using a monospaced font (which most people have for the editing box). In Courier, for example, the en dash is only the tiniest hair wider than the hyphen, and in Lucida Console there's no difference at all. In all other cases I would use the actual UTF character, but I think an exception should be made for dashes. (AWB agrees, FWIW—those are the only Unicode entities it doesn't correct.)—Chowbok ☠ 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I used to use "–" [for en dashes] too, but too often they have been changed by other editors. Using the editing character from the editing menu bar in Wikipedia adds the proper character (an "en dash") and also is consistent with the particular style template for articles relating to the subject Harold Pinter: please see Talk:Harold Pinter (template: use "show"). This article has been through a "good article" review and its sections (originally part of it) are broken off from it. The article that you edited is one of them. There is no need for you to be making those changes to the article: see the discussion pages (and archived discussion pages) relating to Harold Pinter. Works of Harold Pinter (which you don't identify in your comment above) is part of Harold Pinter: the template

Main article: Harold Pinter

is at the top of the article; looking at its talk page [and archived talk pages] is informative.

Please do not make such unnecessary changes as these that I reverted to format that is in keeping with WP:MOS (specifically: WP:DASH. Diffs. [Your personal predilections are really not helpful to this article, which has a long history of editing, some involving this punctuation.] Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [added link, etc.] --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pertinent passage as quoted from the WP:DASH section of WP:MOS:

En dashes

En dashes (–) have four distinct roles.

1. To indicate disjunction. In this role there are two main applications.
   • To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November) and where movement is involved (Dublin–Belfast route). The word to, rather than an en dash, is used when a number range involves a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−3 to 1, not −3–1), or when the nearby wording demands it (he served from 1939 to 1941, not he served from 1939–1941). [....]

Please do notice that the WP:MOS character comes from the editing menu and does not use the "–" format to produce it. --NYScholar (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Murray Waas

Hi:

You had previously edited a Wikipedia article regarding me-- "Murray Waas". I hope I am not breaking Wikipedia rules by identifying myself (I am trying to be transparent-- so I hope it was alright

In any case, you had removed a potentially libelous article from the article after some active discussion with other Wikipedia editors who agreed with you. It was an article deemed potentially libelous by you and some of the other editors-- an article in the Washington City Paper. The Wikipedia Foundation had also found that violated the "presumption of privacy" rules:

"In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be no harm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titllating claims about people's lives."

In any case, if this is allright to do, you and the other editors who used to edit that page have moved on to other things... which has caused the authors of the articles to add it back and vandalize my page.

I was hoping that you could jump into that fray and argue the opinion you did before.. I don't know if I can myself.

I would appreciate whatever you could do. And apologies if I don't understand or know Wikipedia etiquette.

Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurateinfo4 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As other editors concerned about such violations of WP:BLP and WP:CITE have removed this objectionable material and improperly-formatted citations before, I have removed the section that you have objected to. I suggest that you not use more than one user name in Wikipedia, so that you will not be accused of violating policies re: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Templates indicating that you have edited the article about yourself used to be in the discussion page ("talk page"); I'll see if they are still there and add the new user name to it if you have used that user name to edit the article about yourself. I will be mostly offline, because I have a lot of work to do on non-Wikipedia projects. Editors adding material previously deleted after administrative concerns need to be warned that they are violating WP:BLP by continally re-inserting the dubious biased and unreliable sources. --NYScholar (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made some of the changes; please note: It is not considered proper Wikipedia etiquette (WP:Etiquette) or in compliance with core Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for subjects of biographical articles to edit these articles on themselves. You need to leave the editing of the article about yourself to other Wikipedia editors so as not to become involved in biasing it in favor of yourself; to do that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. All Wikipedia editors are subject to WP:LOP, including anonymous IP users. Again, I suggest that you choose only one user name in Wikipedia so as not to be perceived as a "sock puppet" and possibly blocked or banned in the future. --NYScholar (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NRHS distinguished alumni

Hi! I saw your recent attempt to correct the malfunctioning link to the NRHS alumni list and it still didnt seem to be working when I tried it. I corrected the link to access the alumni links page on the school website, from which the list can effectively be accessed. It seems to be working now. Just thought i'd let you know. Thanks--72.27.197.178 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. (I restored missing information from the citation.) I will be offline; I've placed appropriate cleanup, missing citations templates in the article due to lack of documentation as per WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I provided a few more accurately-formatted citations; all the remaining external link URLs used as sources need full citations (author, title, work, publisher, publication information, etc.) for verification purposes and for examination of their reliability as sources in Wikipedia. Please continue discussion relating to this article on the talk page of the article. Please do not post any more comments about this article here. I will be working on projects offline and not able to reply any further. Thank you. (I will archive this exchange when I have more time.) Please comment on the article talk page about matters relating to the editing of this article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: TDK

I'll point out one revert is not edit-warring. Now what are you going to do once that webpage updates? Should we eliminate all print articles from Wikipedia just because a reader cannot easily access it? Alientraveller (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please carry on discussion of editing the article on the talk page of the article The Dark Knight (film), not here. You reverted several of my recent edits one after the other, verging on violating Wikipedia:3RR; please read the policy. I am busy trying to fix citations in the article and cannot take the time to comment on my own talk page too. See "N.B." above. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, this isn't about improving an article, it's a bad faith assumption. Why can't I make three edits in a row for various things? Anyway, I'll let this one thing slide: you are doing a terrific job. Alientraveller (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please just comment on the talk page about editing matters pertaining to that article. This is not the place to do that. (Thanks for the compliment, however; the correction of formatting of citations and verification/checking of citations is very hard work and takes a lot of time. I can't both do that and continue this exchange here.) See my editing summaries for explanations of what I am trying to do, as extended in talk page in the article. (Wikipedia editors and other users are not supposed to comment on anything but editing the article in talk pages; assumptions about editors' motivations are out of bounds.) My own edits have been made in good faith, as was my warning about an impending violation of Wikipedia:3RR made in the proper place--your talk page. I'll be archiving this exchange later. Again: Please use the talk page of the article for discussing matters pertaining to the editing of the article. (See the talkpage header in the article.) Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotham Awards cleanup

For fear of sounding patronising, that was good work on the Gotham Awards article. You've turned what was (frankly) a pretty poorly formed and inappropriately worded "press release" into a credible and decently cited article that probably meets start class or better. I am taken aback in fact. I thought this article was a total dud (and so flagged it instead of trying to fix it). But you've revived it into something decent and valuable. Just goes to show what one editor can do. I can see why your user page is endowed with barnstar acclamations. As we say where I'm from: "Maith an fear".[1][2][3] Guliolopez (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Going offline finally for rest of day/night to do some other things, but I certainly do appreciate your comment. (My "barnstars" are pretty dated!) --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)]

Professional corporation, copyright

Hi. I'm addressing the horrendous backlog at WP:CP and came upon your listing for this article from way back in late May. It looks like you've done the article a world of good. I'm checking to see if you think copyright problems still exist. If you don't, I'll delist it. If you do, I'll see what I can do to help. Considering that there are three weeks of backlog still to address, I'll move on to the next in line until I get some word from you that you think problems persist. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I removed the "one source" template, but I left up the missing citations template; I've done some further editing of the sources, so that you and/or others can examine them (I left the quotations in the notes so that one can consult them as well). The article needs additional sources, I think. The unsourced statement needs a source citation. Given the earlier plagiarism that I encountered originally in this article, that statement was either taken from some unacknowledged source or it is the production of original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. It may be a combination. So the short answer is: I think the article needs some editorial oversight still, especially since it pertains to a "legal" subject and legal project in Wikipedia! --NYScholar (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'll look through and see if I can sort anything out. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dark [Kn]ight

Hey, sorry for my comments on the talk page, I really didn't mean what I said. Sometimes I write before I think, which as you can see, makes me look kinda rude. Keep up the good work! Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this comment. I was just logging off for the day/night, when this new message flashed. I understand and appreciate your comment. I think that I've edited that article all I can handle now. Best wishes with subsequent work on it. (Archived.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Olive Branch

NYScholar - I just want to know why you insist in brow beating the other users. Why not just try to build consensus and foster community? Given your advanced degree and attention to detail, you're a valuable contributor. Unfortunately, and maybe this is a function of anonymity, your behaviour is terribly off-putting and alienating. Can't we all just get along?--Stuthomas4 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to examine your own behavior and please stop attacking me personally in the article talk pages. Please consult Wikipedia:Etiquette, as well as WP:AGF and Wikipedia:talk page guidelines, which you have been violating in Talk: The Dark Knight (film). It is a direct violation of WP:NPA to make talk pages about contributors and to use headings in talk pages to focus on contributors by name; please review the guidelines in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and please see my user boxes with the related links. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) For the relevant policy/guidelines, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Please do not falsely accuse me of attacking you on Heath Ledger or Talk:Heath Ledger, since I have not edited at either page. In addition, please realize that it is not proper etiquette to post template warnings on the talk pages of long-time editors like myself since it is considered patronizing. In addition, I have applauded the majority of your contributions, but I request a more cordial attitude in working with other editors. If you haven't noticed, your tone has not gone over well. I hope you can reflect on this during your wikibreak and return with a better sense of hospitality. Cheers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply will be on your own talk page; will archive this and will be offline; readying this talk page for that. Just saw this prior to logging out. This exchange will be archived. --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your warning; I was a little concerned that there was some inappropriate tactic underway. I'm glad to see that this isn't the case, though I wish that you did not issue a template warning. Obviously, we have specific disagreements about each other's conduct. I don't think we can resolve the issue since we both feel very strongly about our stances (you think you're right, I think I'm right). I'm not really going to get involved with The Dark Knight (film) any further because I do not feel like you are an editor I can work with. I prefer collaboration and exchanges of constructive criticism. It's not in the rules that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but that's how I perceive it. It's just a website at the end of the day, not to mention it's a superhero film (and not some political hot-button topic). When cases like this happen, I try to move on to other articles. (It's probably a matter of pride to continue discussing this with you; I imagine it's the same in your shoes.) Hope you understand where I am coming from, despite our disagreements on how to form the content. Anyway, I hope your wikibreak is well-spent. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[Read and appreciated. Archived as explained. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

My response to your warnings

I have made several good faith efforts to engage this user. Tonight He/She/It (this user insists on no gender identification) has requested administrative help. By looking at the edit history of Dark Knight (film) and the comments by several users, ThuranX, Erik, among others, you will see that there is a consensus that this user has been abusive to other good faith editors. This user declines to engage the real issue of their abusiveness by instead resorting to quoting wiki laws and shouting that they have been the victim all along. I admit that there has been some hostility that has arisen from this entire interlude and I am guilty of an uncivil tone at times. Nevertheless, I believe that there are several users that will attest to the fact that NYScholar has driven many long-time and collaborative editors from this article through brow beating and the sheer mass of the number of edits. --Stuthomas4 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The AN/I thread and recent disputes

Hi,

This is a message sent as one of reconciliation. I don’t believe the recent AN/I thread will come to anything, but I wanted to outline why a few editors at the Dark Knight talk page (myself included) have interpreted your comments as not being in the best spirit of collaboration. Most of your additions to the article have been, as Erik has described several times, excellent, and it is only your reaction when either challenged or even asked for clarification that has caused some exasperation.

I know it can be frustrating when dealing with editors who you feel lack your writing knowledge, but this is part and parcel of helping to create an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit". This frustration has shown through in your comments. Don't get me wrong, correcting errors in others' contributions is perfectly OK, but I think you would present less of a combative image if you didn't comment on each one of them on the talk page, and if you didn't comment on even the perfectly good additions by telling the editor in question "I find most of these changes acceptable". Even if that wasn't intended to sound quite so patronising, it was still interpreted that way, as were your multiple replies to Cornucopia when he/she asked a legitimate question.

Finally, and again motivated from a genuine desire to put an end to this issue, I have three pieces of advice I urge you to follow:

• Consider how your comments can be interpreted, even ones that are meant to educate other editors. Step back before hitting "Send" and look for any potentially contentious phrases.
• Don't clog up article talk page comments with explanations of every edit, or unnecessary detail. Doing so makes them more difficult for other editors to follow. Reword to be a little less verbose, sticking only to the one point you're trying to make. This will also make them seem less like lectures (again, even if they are not intended as such).
• Respect consensus. Our own disagreement was over interpretation of a guideline, not due to either party's actively flouting it. Majority opinion was with the contrary interpretation to yours. This has happened to all of us at some point, and I find in such circumstances it's best to accept this and move on, while still retaining the right to accept as true your own reading of it.

I hope you will take this advice, and everything else I've said above, to heart. Your contributions are welcome, and I hope from this point that effective collaboration, and constructive criticism with editors who respect each other, can occur at the article. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[Read Steve's message and appreciated it; archived the messages. Please see top templates on current talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]