:I agree that my time has not been spent recently in the WickyWacky world, although I hoped that people would understand that professional responsibilities must sometimes trump what is essentially a "hobby." I will continue to devote some time to the projects I had started but in re-establishing my watchlist, I noted with some sadness and resignation that a number of the articles that I had written had been "rewritten" with a revision to an arcane and often singular style by a group of film editors. What is more disturbing is that numerous images have been summarily removed making them "orphans" and thus causing the bots to go into effect. In checking the history of the removals, in nearly all cases, it was an editor on a "crusade" whose intentions were always stated as being for the "common good" but it did appear to be a distressing trend of cyber snobbery and bullying. My initial thought was to replace the images and edits as both actions went against the established "first person's work remains" dictum but I started to pick up a pattern of these editors revising major articles to fit their own style, and further, then eliminating the original research and work that had already been in place. What is further evident is that the editors then triumphantly would boost their revised articles, putting them up for review and attracting further notice when other editors and coordinators recognized their efforts in a plethora of barnstars. I don't particularly mind that there is a sub-set of editors that are working in Wikipedia for personal gratification, the "soliciting" of barnstars, placing their names into contention for administrators, asking for special privileges, ad nauseum... although that was never my intention in adding to the project. I am one of the editors who never has been after rewards and I do not wish to have my work necessarily "peer reviewed" as the articles of themselves invite collaboration and should eventually become the work of many. What I noted on my recent return was the deliberate re-writing of a number of articles without a consensus for change, especially when the changes were in most part, stylistic. One of the galling aspects was the deliberate rewriting of citations and bibliographies that were painstakingly written in "text" but did not follow the sometimes obscure "templates" yet were perfectly acceptable examples of Harvard citations or other standard bibliographic formats. As a former librarian and now a professional editor and author, my work has revolved around the use of the so-called editorial standards or "house style guides" to identify sources, so I believe I am fairly well versed on bibliographic methodology. Now when it comes to Wikipedia's style of referencing sources, the format chosen is an amalgam of two or three formats including the MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and "Chicago Style" guides. Rather than spitting in the wind, I have chosen to not try to re-write Wikipedia into my own notions and I tend to leave other people's work alone, however, that does not seem to be the case for other editors, as can be seen in the never-ending diatribe that is found in the format talk pages. So hopefully, this blathering helps explain my consternation at being labeled "AWOL", as I was never far from the scene but had some genuine reservations about whether an effort in this medium was worth the trouble.    (take this for what it's worth – not much in today's economy!)