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 T naiste 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 g from Gear i d Og Fitzgerald and M r from Gear i d M r Fitzgerald not grasping that they actually were two different people M r big in gaelic and indicated the father g 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 medi val history to such a degree of unreadability that the author one of the world s top medi val 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