I noticed you had cleared your talk page, and I wanted to say, since it appears you might be leaving, take some time off away from this place and if you feel like coming back, fantastic. I have noticed your editing throughout different aspects of Wikipedia and you do good work, so it would be terribly wrong for Wikipedia to lose an editor of your quality. Just thought I would give my 2 cents. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers. I do try, but as I've been aware for a long time, the effort-to-achievement ratio involved in trying to make even the most minor and commonsense improvement or adjustment here is often so lopsided that I really not sure I can be bothered anymore. It's of no benefit to me and limited benefit to overall actual page content, even when you do get some changes to stick, especially given that I don't generally do much more than minor copyediting/expansion and crap-content deletion anyway. Those who are convinced that pages have to reflect how they see the world rather than how the world sees the topic in question, and are determined to battle on with that regardless of the evidence and of WP rules, are always going to win out regardless, especially when forums such as ANI and ArbCom – which I've always tried to avoid anyway – as often as not end up effectively validating such behaviour, even when you've spent a lot of time doing all you can to present the actual nature of the problem at hand. I have to know how to research and write and to present information objectively in my professional life – why volunteer time here for nothing trying to do that simply to end up in futile conflict with the 50% of contributors who don't know how to do those things? Good luck with keeping an eye on the occasional additions of our mutual friend. N-HH talk/edits 08:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. If you are still around, your comments are humbly requested at WP:AN/I#POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- As above, I'm done here I'm afraid (and should have given up a long time ago really). I would briefly add something at ANI but once you start again it's too easy to get sucked into more pointless back and forth with people who are either too thick to understand anything or simply have an agenda that they're not going to resile from. Also, there's the point, referred to above and pretty much proven again by the thread you've opened, that ANI and related processes just do not work for anything other than the most egregious problems. Admins usually just make a cursory review and unless they can see an obvious breach of rules will just mark them down as a "content dispute" – perhaps not unreasonably, since they're just contributors like everyone else who happen to have extra housekeeping functions; they don't run the site as such of course, but nevertheless. Even if they get involved, they'll absurdly suggest that both "sides" are as responsible as each other, thinking this means they're being even-handed. It sometimes takes a little more investigation to see through and actually deal with the behaviour of people who persistently push an agenda, or who display their own ignorance of the real-world mainstream or of what an encyclopedia is meant to be, but know how to stay just inside the rulebook here as technically and superficially applied. Good luck though .. N-HH talk/edits 09:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
Topic ban for Martin Hogbin
N-HH, there is now a move at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Martin_Hogbin. You do not need to become heavily involved but could you just point out that I am not a lone crazy editor but one of a group who disgree with the current content and that I have now proposed a compromise solution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support at the proposed topic ban. As Arbcom have not understood the question I have, like you seem to have done, lost all faith in WP and I will be greatly reducing my editing. It was an interesting social experiment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I see you're suffering from some Wiki-burnout, but you might still be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)