Hi Eric, no. You are not in any way one of the people I was talking about. You just got caught in the crossfire, and if I made you think I was thinking of you I apologise. Your work is consistent good plus even more importantly, you have a sensitivity to other people's work with a few people don't. You build on their work to produce something that improves in quality. The people I was talking about arrive at an article, chop it around, change meanings, change context, spelling, capitalisation and then move on, more often than not without giving the slightest suggestion that they actually knew what they were doing. 

For example, one guy when he comes across the word taoisigh which is the gaelic plural for taoiseach and which is explained as such on its first mention in some articles, frequently changes it to taoiseachs, a non-existent word. He has tried to change governors-general to governor-generals, Prime Minister to Prime minister. He changed links from President of Ireland to President of Ireland, links to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (ie the form of UK between 1901 and 1922) to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so linking the reference to the wrong UK. He mucked up some links to Tánaiste (deputy Irish prime minister) by lower-casing it, changed a series of mentions of First Lady when referring to a specific first lady to lowercase first lady, changed one mention of Garret FitzGerald to Garrett Fitzgerald, removed the word Óg from Gearóid Og Fitzgerald and Mór from Gearóid Mór Fitzgerald, not grasping that they actually were two different people (Mór = big in gaelic and indicated the father, Óg meaning small meant his son) and ended up turning an article that mentioned them both into gobbledigook. That is just some of my work he has mucked up. He made a complete mess of some biology articles, reduced an article on mediæval history to such a degree of unreadability that the author, one of the world's top mediæval historians, quick wiki in disgust. I know at least six people who have left wiki over his actions. And there are quite a few such people. Not a lot, but enough to mangle everything they touch. Another contributor constantly changed an elementary fact in 18th century history on the basis of google searches. I checked on google. The majority of articles said he was right. Those google searches turned up stuff that were barely of high school standard. But she treated google as sacrosanct. If a google search said it, it was gospel. 

I have had political science articles which I have written and which were based on hard fact, in mediocre garbage, applying wrong capitalisation (again based on google searches that largely threw up high school essays), wrong spelling, wrong interpretation, etc. I wasn't reacting simply to the Droop Quota at all (that was the sixth article that day I had done that had been 'hit'. In that case Michael Hardy as he is prone to do, swept in to a topic he knows little about, changed capitalisation, text and even the formula which is the standard DQ formula taught (in that form because as already happened in the discussion on the talk page, if you leave out the parentheses people muck up the order of the calculation and so get the wrong formula). That intervention was classic Michael; go onto a page about a topic he doesn't know much about and instead of asking why it is written like that, unilaterally change it, in most cases producing a version that is so wrong it would be savaged if any student repeated it in a class.

American english and British English use different approaches to capitalisation. Many of the references were to things only found outside the US and so capitalised. Instead he insisted on applying US capitalisation rules to things whose capitalisation is a result of their existence and usage in parts of the world outside the US. That indeed is one of the reasons why google should never be used in checking capitalisation. Apart from its general unreliability, most website mentions in the US are created by people who automatically and incorrectly apply US capitalisation to things that don't exist in the US and are capitalised internationally. A classic example is the electoral system PR.STV (Proportional Representation using the Single Transferable Vote). Michael insisted on lowercasing it on the basis on a google search. PR.STV isn't used in the US and is generally capitalised when referring to the specific voting system, and lowercased when used generically. Where it is mentioned on google, it is largely on the basis of Americans writing about it and downcasing it to suit American english. So Michael unilaterally mucked up the capitalisation, then another US user moved the page to another name that refers to a somewhat similar but not the same electoral system more widely known in the US. So any non-American user would get r