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 rd 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 that was someone else's contribution as the record shows see the history at june 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 nd 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