"

I think I have a way to resolve this unfortunate Billy the Kid issue. If you will give me a moment, I first want to explain how we got to this point from my perspective. A lot has been made over my alleged failure to adhere to the preferred Wikipedia manual of style. That failure on my part is simply not being as well versed on the various Wikipedia guidelines as I probably should be. I am not trying to disrupt your standards. Indeed, I would appreciate any and all the help I can get, along with the active participation by experienced Wikipedia editors to bring the Billy the Kid article in line with Wikipedia standards. 

I am not trying to defy or insult anyone. There seems to be a misunderstanding that suggests I seem to think that I have some kind of ""ownership"" over the subject of Billy the Kid. This is not true now - and it never was true. Perhaps some of this misunderstanding stems from a sentence I could have worded better which read as follows: ""All I was trying to do was provide the most accurate template on the subject of Billy the Kid that others could work from."" 

If I could take back the word ""template"" I would, since it was clearly construed as meaning something totally different from what I was trying to state.  What I was trying to state comes down simply to accurate ""facts and dates"" regarding Billy the Kid, and bringing the state of those many ""facts and dates"" up to date to this point in time. Before it was removed, my Wikipedia article reflected the status of Billy the Kid research as it exists today. There were 147 detailed citations, which sourced the work of such noted Kid historians as Philip J. Rasch, Robert M. Utley and Frederick Nolan among many others. Before it was last removed on December 17, that version that I was working on contained the most accurate version of the Kid's life that has yet appeared on Wikipedia. That version of the article contained contributions by several researchers - not just me.

Then it all went away, when the article was removed for reasons that make no sense - at least not for anything contained in the article itself. I attempted to restore the version that I had been working on at 11:47 17 December 2015. I attached a note that read: ""Please do not delete this version of the Billy the Kid article. It contains the contributions of several respected historians, and remains the most comprehensive, and accurate treatment of the subject that has appeared on Wikipedia so far.""

My restoration only stayed up for 4 minutes and and was once again removed at 11:51 on 17 December 2015.

I made what turned out to be a final attempt at restoration six minutes later at 11:57 17 December 2015. This time I left a note that said ""The continued deletion of an article by myself, and several other contributors, goes beyond vandalism and borders on being criminal."" The crime was against historical honesty, accuracy and, indeed, the goals that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. The total lack of respect to those who contributed to the article goes without saying.

This time, for my troubles, I was blocked - and my blocked status remains in effect until Dec. 24. Merry Christmas.

The irony is that when the version of the article I last worked on was deleted,  on December 17, I was done with it. I had no plans for further changes. I had hoped that others would then jump in - particularly those who possess the Wikipedia editorial skills I lacked to make it go along with your manual of style and other Wikipedia preferences.

Billy the Kid, as you all know, was born in lower Manhattan in New York City. I would like to use New York City as an analogy for how I view Wikipedia. Since the early 1960's I've spent a considerable amount of time, off and on,  in New York City. Those of you who have been there frequently know that there is always construction going on. Indeed, change is a constant in New York City. Change is also a constant with any Wikipedia article. As stated, it was never my intention to ""own"" the article. I never expected, or wanted, it to remain frozen in place with my contributions. I was looking forward to contributions from other historians and researchers who could provide further info on the ""facts and dates"" contained in the article, as well as working with experienced Wikipedia editors who could correct any mistakes that didn't go along with your preferred ""encyclopedic"" standards.

Anyway, we seem to have ended up, at least for now, at cross purposes. Why it got to this point I don't understand. I am not looking for adversaries, at Wikipedia - I am looking for the collaboration of any and all who truly want to make the Billy the Kid article the best it can possibly be today - and, with the continued contributions of others, in the years that follow.

The quickest way to make this happen is by taking my