"

If you think you can do the references better, go ahead. I challenge you. Don't tell me to ""have it my way""  as though you are doing me a favor; you are not. If you think you can do the article better, go ahead, I would like to see it.

The reason I handled the references that way is that it seems to me to be the most convenient for the reader (and other editors), which is all I care about. If that pisses other editors off (and how many other editors would that be?), it says something about them, not about me. I have no interest in ""owning"" an article. But I have worked long and hard to do a good job and deserve to have my work treated with respect, which BMK has certainly not done. Just look at the section above titled ""Wallack's Theatre."" 

Rewrite the article to your heart's content; just make sure you are improving it. The claim that I think I own the article is BMK's complete fiction. If you look at the record, you will see that I have welcomed constructive changes. But Wikipedia has a rule about collegiality and collaboration. Making many and significant changes to someone else's work without discussing it with him is not collaboration, it is contemptuous. Look  how I interacted with him here (under cul-de-sac). Do you think I deserve to be treated the same way? I do.

Just try to change an article that BMK has edited. I have  and have almost always been immediately reverted, even though in most cases it turned out I was right. And these instances do not concern matters of taste; they concern matters of fact. This has happened many times  most recently here (by coincidence, on October 3rd). So BMK has a double standard: one for him, and the opposite for me (and presumably everyone else). I give respect to those who give me respect; most often I have been treated by him with dismissive disdain.

The reason I blanket-reverted his changes (I didn't even look at them) is only that: that his way of going about editing my article was contemptuous. He reminds me of Lucy kicking down Linus' sand castles in Peanuts. I was not objecting to the content of his changes (although I do, to some of them), but to the process. Observe how Moonriddengirl did it: She discussed the issues on the article's Talk Page first  and I had no trouble making the changes. Is it too much to expect BMK to do the same?

As for Footnote 1, that was someone else's contribution, as the record shows (see the history at 26 June 2013); I merely relocated it to where I thought it was more appropriate. And notice how I politely explained to that editor on the Talk Page what I did and why  and said I hoped he agreed. If you think the article is better without it, delete it (you might want to explain the reason for doing so to that contributor, as he deserves an explanation).

And speaking of original research, you might want to have a look at the edit war here (discussed above in the section ""Madison Square depot"") and explain to me how the note I added constitutes ""original research"" and is therefore unacceptable. And how about the edit war here. Can you explain BMK's behavior in that case? (And notice that BMK began editing my article again for the first time in two months on October 2nd, right after these three exchanges  Madison Square depot, the map image, and the categories. Could it possibly be spite?)

The problem is not me; for a year I have been a conscientious editor, and carefully sensitive to the feelings of others, including BMK. But although we have occasionally had cordial exchanges, for the most part, I did not receive similar treatment in return. And now he is completely misrepresenting me and our history. And when I say so  to protect myself  your response is, ""Come on.""   "