User talk:Cwobeel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A page you started (Amanda and Jerad Miller) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Amanda and Jerad Miller, Cwobeel!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good timely article. Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dave Brat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

98.196.234.202[edit]

I'm thinking User talk:SCIENCE MEANS REALITY. Pretty much well confirmed with CU block. I'm sure they'll be back, keep an eye out. Dreadstar 03:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. Thanks for the heads-up.- Cwobeel (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Walker (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Singer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Smoke and mirrors[edit]

I just got a message from an arbitrator: there has been no e-mail from BlueSalix to the arbcom mailinglist, more than 24 hours after the deadline for sending it. So that was just more smoke and mirrors. Hope you feel totally vindicated![1] Mind you, I think it was quite obvious in June that the accusations against you were phoney. Bishonen | talk 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

I am still puzzled about the whole thing. Why would he do something like this? Is it just that he made a mistake and got into it too deep to be able to apologize and move on? Beats me, really. I guess human nature is complicated. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ozone depletion and global warming Environmental policy[edit]

Hallo Cwobeel - if you like my stuff (some do not ;)) I would be grateful if you could have a look on the article i just wrote, as I am not an english native speaker. Best regards Serten (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: Great article! Corrected a few typos and added a references section, but otherwise it is fine (I am not a scientist so I can't pass judgment on the content). I would suggest you expand the lead so that it is a summary of the article, not just one sentence (see WP:LEAD. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

EW[edit]

I advise caution. It looks like you may be involved in an edit war with Two kinds of pork at 2014 Ferguson unrest. I'm not posting the in-your-face warning because I know you already understand what edit warring is.- MrX 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not. I am taking a break from that article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Shooting of Michael Brown and 2014 Ferguson unrest. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cwobeel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I don't think I have edit warred, please see my contrib list. In any case, I took a voluntary break from these articles this morning (See [2], and [3]), and I thought that blocks were not punitive.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on your promise not to edit the two articles for one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I looked at your edits in some depth. In the 2014 Ferguson unrest article, you actually breached WP:3RR, but I decided not to use that as a basis for the block. As for your break claim, are you saying that you promise to stay away from both articles for at least a week? Without some sort of condition, a "voluntary break" is meaningless.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: yes. I will stay away for a week from both articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to endorse an unblock. Cwobeel has been a great asset to improving these article, but a voluntary break would not be a bad idea.- MrX 21:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23 and MrX. Just to clarify, let me know if contributing to talk is OK, or to stay away from that as well. I'll be happy to stay away from talk, just that I could offer sources, respond to comments, and to help with improvements. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The one-week prohibition does not apply to the talk pages. General rules of behavior do, but otherwise you're free to participate in discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

New Page?[edit]

Hello. I believe you stated on my talk page that I could ask questions if I had any? I was considering making an article on 3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures 2, the sequel to 3D Ultra Minigolf Adventures. However, I am not really sure if it is noteworthy enough to make an article for, as it was not a particularly well-received game. I am also not really sure how to begin creating an article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: There is a good primer at Wikipedia:Starting an article which may be helpful. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of ethnic cleansings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tutelary (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about the block and me being jerkish. @Bbb23: please consider releasing Cwobeel from his self-imposed editing ban.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TKOP, but I am actually enjoying just watching WP works its magic. I am helping with sources and commenting in talk. (Gesture appreciated, though!) - Cwobeel (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Heh, there's something liberating about not being allowed to edit a controversial article, isn't there? Much less headache, and you just get to step back, watch, and kind of smile at all the drama. Thanks for your comment, Two kinds of pork.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: My lesson? WP will do just fine without you :) Liberating indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. Words to live by. (A lot of words, actually--it needs a trim.) Drmies (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Good one and so true. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indictment of Rick Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Ginsberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Government of Louisville, Kentucky. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Review for deletion[edit]

Hello Cwobeel A couple of months ago, You assisted in maintaining the wikipiedia standards about a page created by a colleague


Page is being marked for deletion See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akinwunmi_Ambode

I would like to recreate the page with only verified information that you are ok with. This is not a campaign strategy.

The fact is the Person is a notable local figure, you can check the amount of press clipping available

he is a published author

I look forward to hearing from you

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kontee0987 (talkcontribs) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be a waste of your time, as there was an overwhelming consensus that this person did not meet the notability threshold, and the only supporters were blocked for socking. He may be a published author, but that is not enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones[edit]

Hi Cwobeel,

after reading what you say about the current issue regarding the lead of the Alex Jones article I'm a bit lost as to why you would revert TheRedPenOfDoom as you did here. If you agree that this information should be present in the lead (as you apparently do according to your recent comment in WP:BLP), why did you remove it and sent it back down the article? Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Gaba (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

You nibble at me frequently with continuous attacks on my intentions and contributions; you walk a fine line, but collectively it is harassment and de facto personal attacks. Please stop. If it continues I will seek guidance from an Admin. I see from you talk page that you have a history of misbehavior at WP, including a recent block. I'm sure that your actions will be considered as a whole. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I never told you to "GFYS" or called you names as you did here. So before you call upon an admin, read WP:BOOMERANG - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not calling for intervention yet, but if you want to continue; I will. I'll stand by my comments describing your actions. I'm fine letting the chips fall where they may. Are you? I think that you've tweaked enough noses that I won't be alone. Be smart, just back off wikistalking my comments. I'm happy to remove that section at MB talk pages if you want. Your choice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's drop it, shall we? Up to you if you want to remove the shit you wrote about me. - Cwobeel (talk)

Thanks, that's fine. I'll give respect if I get it. Let's start from scratch. Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Probably you were misled by the misrepresentations of some "activists". Please note what I wrote here. Galant Khan (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

I find your compromise acceptable. It may be helpful to update your !vote to support the compromise option (in addition to your preferred option) to help resolve dispute about if there is actually consensus for this or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Although not important enough for me to fight over, I think your most recent c/e may have strayed from the sources. (Although this may be due to ambiguity in the sources). I believe the souring states he had no convictions or pending charges for serious offenses, which is not the same thing as no convictions for serious offenses and no charges (at all) - however any pending charges that may have been unreleased would have had to be from more than 3 months ago as to still be under juvenile protection, so again it may go back to ambiguity in the sourcing/reporting. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.[edit]

Thanks much for your help. I am brand new to editing Wikipedia, obviously. I had read some of the instructions and still managed to violate the primary rule. (Imagine my chagrin when I found I had not signed my post. Yikes.) Eiwacat (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Eiwacat: You are welcome. Just drop me a line if you need any assistance, and happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

M Brown[edit]

RE: "...which will decide whether there is probable cause to indict Wilson for having committed a crime in shooting and killing Brown." Not sure how I fee about that. I think that in this case less is more, but really not sure. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTFORUM[edit]

You're not supposed to pepper an article talk page with your own personal condemnations and accusations of conspiracy directed at an article subject. Please stop. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Conservatives and Reformists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikistalking[edit]

The list of articles in which your first edit to the article was to revert me is becoming quite lengthy.CFredkin (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have many articles in my watch list, mostly about politicians which seems to be your area of interest. If I am reverting an edit of yours, I hope I made the case as for the reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson pictures[edit]

I found you via the edit history summary tool for 2014 Ferguson unrest, as I was looking for major contributors to that article. A friend of mine who works for Slate was in Ferguson for some of the protests and I convinced him to license the photos he took under CC-BY (see here). I don't want to upload all of them to commons and figure out which to use next, so I'm asking contributors to that article for their input on which would be most useful. If you think some are useful you can ping me and let me know or just upload them yourself if you're so inclined. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a look. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: Great photography, thank you. These will be very useful:

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I'll upload these sometime this evening. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk: Thanks! Just ping me when you are done. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Listed below. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

uploaded files so far[edit]

@Protonk: Thanks! Could you upload the others as well? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, did I miss some? Protonk (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Protonk: These two if you could. Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbouie/14907066986/in/set-72157646091879339
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbouie/14929698752/in/set-72157646091879339
Yes check.svg Done Sorry I missed those! Thanks for your help placing these in articles. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no, thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

redirects[edit]

It wasn't worth me reverting you over, or even commenting on it when you originally did it, but that IP is correct about WP:NOTBROKEN there are some good reasons to leave it as a redirect instead of piping it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the reasons? I usee WP Cleaner often, and avoiding redirects is one of the cleanup actions. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I see, yet another thing to learn. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The link breaks it down pretty well in the bullet points, but specifically the "what links here" helps a lot with evaluating WP:COMMONNAME. if everyone is linking to the redirect rather than the current title, we should move the article. (Not to mention the readability in the article source) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand now, thanks for the heads up! - Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Touching base[edit]

Hi, there.

I've been on Wikipedia for years as an editor, but have just come upon something which has not yet been publicized.

I don't want to give up my long time identity, but think I need confidentiality for another week or so until I can get this story out there. So I've briefly taken on a more covert identity with no history on the site.

There is at least one editor from a right wing site who has admitted to the identity of his or her employer. I'm guessing that editor has many colleagues, and they could all be sitting in adjacent cubicles in a boiler room somewhere.

They are admittedly getting paid, in a fee-for-service operation, directly by political campaigns. That would possibly be subject to FEC reporting violations, but it's been my experience that money could be thoroughly laundered making it difficult to follow.

A major part of their jobs seem to be to post positive info about their clients and to delete negative info, or to attack their clients' electoral opponents, deleting positive info and adding negative info, often poorly sourced or left entirely unsourced. They are making perhaps hundreds of edits daily.

I'm trying to identify who some numbers of their cohorts are, before blowing the whistle on this scam.

I think you've had a bit of a row with an editor whom I think is one of them, (C)Fredkin. Proving it is a bit more difficult, but if I can out them, there are liable to be dozens of these operators using the same IPN.

What makes the task of outing them more difficult is that there are most certainly legitimate editors, say who are involved in reverts, whose hands (or fingers, I guess) are clean. So weeding out the paid actors from ordinary Wikipedians is no small task.

Some of them are more clever than others. I've seen CF for instance, keeping an edit to a minimal number of characters or zero changes by adding or eliminating the requisite amount of text, a character-by-character task, and by using an innocuous subject line, so what they're up to can more easily escape scrutiny.

This is a major operation, with over $10 million in this two-year election cycle, in funding received from candidates or their campaigns, or perhaps interested third parties or organizations such as the RNC, or such as the Koch brothers and their wealthy allies.

I found one attack today, not on Wikipedia, but by this same outfit in another theater, that seemed to me to have a substantial potential for attracting a major libel suit.

They attack or promote mainly U.S. Senate candidates, but they also have been involved in campaigns for House seats and gubernatorial officeholders or potential candidates. They don't seem to have any other interests about anything at all, at least as long as they're "on the clock."

Would you be interested in assisting me in exposing them? Their enterprise wholly violates Wikipedia COI and NPOV policies.

Essentially, they're turning Wikipedia into a rabidly partisan campaign tool, then profiting rather handsomely by their dishonest efforts.

As far as I can figure, they're not violating any criminal or civil laws, per se, on Wikipedia, but this element of their strategy and activity should be stopped. Their activities in other arenas is even more loathsome, but if they are outed for their abuse of Wikipedia, it will affect their revenues and tar all their overall operations with the same brush.

Can you suggest anyone else who would be trustworthy enough join us in this endeavor? I noticed one editor, MastCell, whom I think may have been getting similar treatment on the SamBrownposterior page. (I'm trying to dodge searches by any of the miscreants, here.)

Confidentiality will no longer be necessary after the story comes out.

One thing I'm looking for is to find three of these COI violators who post or delete some material, then when an editor reverts their edits, they can go to their partners to revert so that the legitimate and neutral editor either gives up in disgust or falls into the 3R trap. CF is willing to go to enervating arbitration, too, to discourage scrutiny of the true nature of his or her activities.

I'm trying not to tip them off, since they'll just change their tactics, I suspect, to allow them to continue to do what they're currently up to, but in a more obscure manner.

Lastly, I'm wondering if you've spotted any other editor whom in your opinion seems to exhibit this somewhat suspicious behavior?

Thanks so much.

I won't feel bad if you say "No" or "not interested."

I'll check for your answer and respond on Monday, likely.

Feel free to erase this post, of course. Euclidean Elements (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, these are pretty serious issues if true. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but Wikipedia recently amended its terms of use, requiring anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement. Here is an article at the WSJ [4]. The amendment to the terms is available at Wikimedia meta: m:Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment - Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Euclidean Elements: If this is as serious as it seems and if you have proof, it would be best for you to contact Stephen LaPorte, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation, to seek advice. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Euclidean Elements, Cwobeel: Somebody already helpfully tipped him off on his constantly-blanked talk page. I don't know all the facts behind what you're saying but I wanted to add my encouragement in pursuing discovery, and full prosecution under Wikipedian and legal means. I have no interest in editing about politics, because I value sanity and whatnot; I randomly came upon this particular offender when I was editing the article about my tragically local representative here. That's my only encounter, because I'm not in politics, but I documented the encounter as much as I could, there.
If you check the edit history of the guy's own Talk page, you'll see that it's like uncovering all the bodies in the cities buried under his torrential lava flow of what must be megabytes of anti-encyclopedic, anti-community, anti-accountability, anti-logic abuse. It's sheer verbal violence, like an unmitigated mass crime spree, turning a free enyclopedia into a tarpit as you described. I just don't know how else to describe it other than metaphor. There are wave after wave of litanies of legitimately policy-based complaints -- identical, systematic, perm-blockable offenses by the dozens, all blanked with impunity into a mass grave. It's actually horrifying to me as a community-minded citizen. How this account could still possibly exist, just on the grounds of WP:3RR in any given day alone, is unfathomable.
Did you know that there was already at least one major community-wide inquest into exactly this issue, on the entire scope of American politics, focusing soundly on the offender in question? I don't know the outcome, but he's obviously still at large. The admin of that inquest spontaneously invited me to participate simply because of my aforementioned chance encounter, so I tried inviting other people from that encounter (all of whom had tangled with him countless times, including dear Cwobeel). They all inexplicably declined to even comment. These people who have spent (and would continue to spend) days grappling with this guy over the course of months and months, said that they didn't have the time to cast a vote to make him stop. So he got away with murder. This behavior is to the level of such an utterly indescribably pathologically violent extreme. It is how I learned what WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE are, as defined in the inquest.
Did you know that this particular offender had admitted in public, on someone else's Talk page, that he has almost exactly the political agenda you describe? He didn't admit the professional part, but the personal part for sure. I can't find it offhand, but he literally said that based entirely upon his own personal career, he believes that any technology culture inherently engenders a left-leaning political view (since all existence is apparently zero-sum adversarial, and thus political, us-versus-them); therefore, Wikipedia is so inherently left-biased that it is his personal mission in life to enforce the opposite bias. Not neutrality, of course. Now that you're suggesting that this mission is not just personal, I am not in the least bit surprised. I was hoping that I'd documented it on the fake trumped-up discussion that he started on that politician's Talk page (to which he didn't even respond, except to further maneuver tendentiously beyond), but I guess not.
I couldn't care less about politics, or about prosecuting anything myself. I don't know how, and I can't stand this level of negativity in life at all, but I won't just let a free community fall to the abject tyranny of a few people. I care only about these threats against the very existence of the free encyclopedia. Assuming that you're not also crazy (unless it's "here's to the crazy ones"), and assuming that you're going to utilize purely nonviolent and just means, I wish you GOOD LUCK. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second Boer War[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Boer War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)