User talk:Jobrot

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-individualism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology. 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) 09:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No offence taken!
Hi Jobrot,

We appear to have been told that we should not have been having the discussion that we were having about whether there should be an article about Cultural Marxism, which I personally thought was relatively constructive and consensus-seaking. But anyway, for the record, your deleted comment wasn't in any way offensive and seemed a pretty legitimate rhetorical device to me so please don't feel you need to apologise.

I'm slightly embarrassed if this is your first serious experience of Wikipedia from the inside. Although it can be pretty painful at times on the whole Wikipedia can be a cause for optimism about the potential of humanity. I generally find being a Wikipedian a hugely rewarding and stimulating activity and even if your Cultural Marxism experience is horrible I would encourage you to stick around a bit and explore other less fraught areas.

No doubt we'll be crossing swords on the current issue at some point soon, but give me a shout if I can ever help with anything more generally.

Cheers,

JimmyGuano (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's very commendable of you!


 * It's been a baptism by fire, but I'm starting to see the more collaborative community beyond this single-issue.


 * That said, I do I believe that the outside attention from controversial topics like this will eventually improve Wikipedia, and it's already led me specifically to try and close a gap in the current deletion panel selection system as well as  try to find out what other gaps there might be. I definitely want to improve Wikipedia, and I'm sad to see that some are claiming it's been going down hill since 2007.


 * Thanks for your message --Jobrot (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Jobrot. I'd just like to say, probably also on behalf of others, thanks for your contributions so far. I'm sure we're not done yet, but your edits so far have been invaluable. If you ever need an admin or any advice on our fantastical rituals and processes, not that you're not getting on fine, just drop me a line. Statutory welcome template attached. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth
United Methodist Church. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=644287169 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F644287169%7CDraft:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory%5D%5D Ask for help])

Unexplained Disruptive Section Blanking of Western Marxism
Hello, I'm 172.56.17.35. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Section Blanking here:
 * I did, I also explained it on the talk page. --Jobrot (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

An Sock puppet investigation concerning Cultural Marxism Deletion
[] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.36 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that didn't work out for you (HINT: most sock puppets have a similar style of writing, where as my style of writing and RGloucester's are extremely different [they tend to be quite curt in their responses, I'm verbose]). On a personal/political note, I do believe that "Cultural Authoritarianism" is becoming more and more problematic on the left side of politics - but I don't think this is due to any Marxist connections (whether they exist or not). I believe the left has some very reasonable ideals, but they too often become emotional in how they carry those ideals out. I believe this is because (particularly in cases of feminism, racism and homophobia) there is a legitimate emotional context of real-life, daily-to-regular cues hinting towards their own oppression and alienation from/by others hence their own defensive character on those particular issues. They are matters of emotional context, personal experience, and individual perceptions... and perceptions, yours, mine, everyone elses all have the same weight of Authority. But their stories are real. You cannot argue with someone elses experiences and expect an equal weighting right off the bat. You have to first show a basic sympathy/understanding of the problems which alter-perceptions for SOME INDIVIDUALS. This is not in my opinion a product of Marxism, but a product of human nature.


 * There is an interesting article written just after the Elliot Rodger shooting here []. Keep in mind that to understand the left, you have to understand that their beliefs are as genuine as any other (including your own). --Jobrot (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice for IP editor
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jobrot (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rants removed per FORUM
Hi Jobrot, just to let you know. When two different editors remove rants by anon ip editors per Wiki guidelines, you probably should not restore the rants. The IP has been very disruptive and their comments on the Talk page have not been constructive. I've collapsed the section they started, and the IP has been blocked on various different ip hops. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks for making sure I knew! I won't revert. I understand that some people have difficulty discussing these issues without becoming adversarial or pugnacious. --Jobrot (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave is canvassing WP:CANVASS. You are free to do as you feel is best as long as it is not edit warring or disruptive. Dave is seeking support here. He is the first person to revert my edits at Cultural Marxist. He has been trying to harass me by continually reverting my edits. That is disruptive as is canvassing. -- Previous unsigned comment by 172.56.33.120 (talk)

Thank you for restoring my edits that encouraged discussion. Dave was unhappy with that and came here to canvass. I believe you already know all of this. I started the SPI because of the editor analyzer. You can find it at tools and you came up as match with the other subject. I was not meant as mean spirited but I believe it warranted some more eyes. It was shot down in 3 hours without much input or any and deleted and that is unusual in a SPI. It would help if you took down the Noob because you know to much to be a NOOB and people notice that when discussions heat up. Maybe state what you stated at ANI that you edited for some time as an IP. I am assuming good faith with you now that the SPI is over. If I was not blocked I would of never brought my block to ANI and drug your name into it.

I was perturbed at Chillum. It was really about myself and Chillum. The SPI was brought in because it was why I was blocked. Chillum said I was sock editing logged out. He never said whose sock I was supposed to be or presented any evidence. It was a pretty dumb move he thought he could easily get away with on an IP. It turned ugly and his reputation is now questioned by some because I highlighted his actions. IP's are routinely abused at Wikipedia because many account holders log out to edit which makes the real IP's look bad. Account holders make IP's look bad so it is sort of of silly to demand everyone register. It will not stop IP's from logging out and if they have some basic tech skills they will not get caught. It is impossible for wiki to catch a good sock. You only have my word that I am not a sock but admins are not supposed to block accounts without evidence. So now I am blocked for evading a incompetent/ paranoid/ malicious block. You decide which best describes the action. The fact is he never apologized in never will so I could care less about the block now. That is what happens when they shit on people, the people quit playing nice because that is voluntary as they have no real power, that is a delusion.

Well again thanks for reinstating my concern albeit it was somewhat heated due to DD2K hounding my edits and the maleficence of Chillum. It is almost always bigger than one person. Several have been involved and nobody is coming out smelling like roses. Some despise the fact an IP can melt away while they have everyone learning a little more about them. No one made them register although they may have caved to pressure of which there is much. Some think it is their duty to get you to join, I do not know why it is such a big issues with so many. Very few have a real identity here so it is all pretending. Some do not like that game and remains IP's. We are the outsiders. Sorry for such a long rambling post and I apologize for the mess you were drug into at ANI. The SPI I have no qualms about starting as the evidence of the analyzer, your jumping right in the AFD, stating you are noob, and editing a limited scope of articles does reach a high level of suspicion. It does not mean your are guilty though and that is why there is a process albeit this was a very short one. But I will correct my previous ANI suspicions and angry comments and assume you are here to do good. It is still open between me an Chillum though which is unfortunate but that is the way it works out sometimes. It has been good discussing what direction to take the article. I do not know if I will add much in the future as I generally avoid these messy subjects. I believe I lost my common sense for a few days. Man what people put into this and the abuse we give each other. Well good luck and happy editing ahead, hopefully. 172.56.33.120 (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I am taking a break, I hope!!!
 * Well as you know - there's nothing in policy that prevents (or even casts any aspersions on) editing from an IP! It's a completely legitimate thing to do.
 * Yeah, I've found wikipedia editing can get quite involved at times. Sometimes there's definitely skin in the game. Particularly when coming up against specific uncooperative users/admins... and although evading bans and going after specific users wouldn't be my style, I don't hold any grudges towards you as a user or against anything you've said or done. I like to think of wikipedia as at its best when it's a gentle game of rhetoric and truth seeking - and I feel certain that building consensus through well researched and compelling argumentation is its strongest tool. Good luck with your future path, I'm sure we'll have extended discussions on the Cultural Marxism draft talk page. Thanks very much for your note. --Jobrot (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A response to your accusations is given.
Regards, kaffeburk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

'Personal Attacks'
I apologize if you perceived my comments as personal attacks, but I did not intend them as such. Regardless of our political differences, I'd like to mutually drop this arguing and fighting, as it will get neither of us anywhere. Ideloctober (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't apologize for my perceiving as it is my perceiving. You can however apologize for your assuming that I'm a Liberal, or a Marxist or some combination of the two - and for your dissemination of this assumption as if meaningful. It may be meaningful in other forums - but here; it is irrelevant to the editing process (keep this in mind should anyone accuse you of views they deem undesirable). If you do apologize for brigading your assumptions, and continue to treat your fellow Wikipedians with the basics of respect and deportment to which humanity should be accustom, then your time here will go smoothly and you will be afforded the merit of a respectful opinion. It's that simple. But until you can bring yourself to reframe this attempted apology in terms of your own perceptions rather than my own it will stand as nothing more than an attempt at excusing yourself from a fight you initiated. So feel free to apologize for your assumptions... but please, please don't apologize for my perceptions. They are my own, and generally I keep them to myself. --Jobrot (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jobrot!


Happy New Year! Jobrot, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cultural bolshevism
Your merge proposal has been closed. I believe your research findings about Mosley-era British fascists' early use of the term "cultural Marxism" would provide useful context in the CB article. Would you mind adding it, with the sources? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankfurt School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Hall. 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) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankfurt School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reify. 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) 09:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What's the meaning of this?
What's the meaning of this absurd series of edits? If you keep trying to introduce this type of unsourced tripe into the encylopaedia, you'll have trouble staying here. Do you mind citing a source for the statement "Cultural Marxism is The Frankfurt School's critique of The Culture Industry"? I expect you haven't done so because there are none. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything in those edits has corresponding statements in the current section. There weren't any drastically different statements to what's there now (eg. "Originally the term 'cultural Marxism' had a niche academic usage within cultural studies where it referred to a form of anti-capitalist cultural critique which specifically targeted those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass produced under capitalism." where "those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass produced under capitalism." constitutes The Culture Industry - a concept the Frankfurt School thinkers came up with). SO it's not "an absurd series of edits" as you put it, you're just over-reacting.
 * What's more you're aiding the conspiracy theorists. Face it; the term "Cultural marxism" is found in academic texts, by dismissing that fact without providing a clear and concise meaning for the term - you're allowing proponents of the conspiracy theory to 'fill in the blank'. Aiding the ignorance of people, and allowing them to further demonize The Frankfurt School. Wikipedia is intended to educate, and make concepts easier to understand - not more difficult.
 * The Frankfurt School practised a kind of Cultural Marxism which critiqued The Culture Industry. That is as plain as day to anyone who has investigated these thinkers. Would you really deny such an obvious statement? I can understand defending the content against people who wish to claim they were an evil Jewish cabal; but as I say - from my perspective you're aiding those people, and reducing the section to being merely a timeline of their own perversion of the topic. Allowing them space to perpetuate their falsehoods rather than providing an honest answer. This gap in knowledge should be closed. --Jobrot (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would deny such a statement because there are no sources which correlate with what you're saying. I have seen NO SOURCES that say that the thoughts of the Frankfurt School, such as critical theory, constituted 'cultural Marxism'. That's because there are not any. You have no right to weave rubbish out of thin air. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have seen NO SOURCES that say that the thoughts of the Frankfurt School, such as critical theory, constituted 'cultural Marxism'. - You're wrong I'm sorry. Here is a highly credible source discussing the Frankfurt School thinkers as practising Cultural Marxism. --Jobrot (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That source has been debunked numerous times. First of all, it doesn't say that "Cultural Marxism is The Frankfurt School's critique of The Cultural Industry". Second of all, it uses the 'loose definition' of the term to mean any Marxist approach to culture, and has been discussed before, this does not warrant an article, as it is a niche usage, and as there are numerous articles covering the subject under their common names. The source does not support equating a so-called 'cultural marxism' with the Frankfurt School's critique of the culture industry, or indeed, with equating the so-called 'cultural marxism' exclusively with the Frankfurt School. You know everything that I'm saying here, because you've been told it thousands of times, at this point. And yet you persist in creating a PoV fork to disrupt discussion of the conspiracy theory, which is the usage supported by reliable sources for the actual proper noun term 'Cultural Marxism'. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory usage is not found in any reliable sources of an academic nature. The usage to refer to the early works of The Frankfurt School (the period in which they had an interest in The Culture Industry) - IS found in reliable academic sources. This was discussed during the AfD - and no, George Ritzer who is a Sociology Professor from Cornell University has not been "debunked numerous times". Acting dismissive and claiming to have debunked something, is not the same as having spent the time to do so. The work cited is indeed valid, and states that "a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and receptions of cultural artifacts within concrete sociohistorical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses.".


 * I'll also point out that Cultural liberalism and Cultural Conservatism already have pages, and can also be met with the accusation that they are vaguely defined concepts; so that's no reason not to have content on Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Frankfurt School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Note I have taken a quick look at the editing history and am seeing some very charged language which raises serious NPOV concerns. As a general rule when an edit is challenged by reversion the next stop should be the talk page. Given the controversial nature of what you are attempting to insert into the article I think you should definitely refrain from further editing along that line unless/until you have first secured a consensus for those edits on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Changes were discussed on the talk page here - where a slim (5 to 4) majority of editors expressed a desire to have new content around the issue. I've been addressing RGloucester ☎'s issues with the content when they are expressed (often without reply from them), I've also invited RGloucester ☎ to discuss it on the talk page, but for whatever reason they've decided to address me personally here. --Jobrot (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would encourage taking this to the talk page and seeking expanded input. An RfC is always an option. You could also post a neutrally worded request for comment on relevant wiki projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC) theor


 * A follow-up reply about the Frankfurt School edit war.

Dear Jobrot:

Please, note that the factual version of the Cultural Marxism section — which you reverted to your personal-opinion version — is based upon the sources; Teodor Adorno did not say or write the things you claim in your edits, that is, Adorno did not contradict himself to agree with a right-wing misrepresentation of his work. Moreover, the factual version directly quotes the source that identifies Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy theory, which is spelled out in this source: '''Jamin, Jérôme (2014). "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right". In Shekhovtsov, A.; Jackson, P. The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 84–103. ISBN 978-1-137-39619-8. doi:10.1057/9781137396211.0009. Retrieved 18 January 2015'''. In the Paul Weyrich section, you deliberately obscure the white-supremacy racism mongered by that fellow and his organizations (particular to the U.S.), by misrepresenting and justifying the internal racism of the U.S. as an international struggle against a Marxist take over of the world. As you noted, the denotations of the term Cultural Marxism have changed in time, hence, the thematic presentations work.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Struck through by myself (Jobrot). Chas. Caltrop (above) was fond of pasting long and outdated warnings. Like this one. They eventually came to their senses. --Jobrot (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism page
I noticed you are attempting to recreate an article for Cultural Marxism. I was curious on your progress and if the left-wing hold on Wikipedia are actually going to let you create it. It's definitely a concept that is too large for a mere section within an article, and the conspiracy theory aspect of it is but a fraction of the topic. I read your drafts and they appear to be neutrally worded. Is this still something you are trying to pursue? I don't know if you'll get very far with the way many editors have been behaving these past few years. TJD2 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Chas Caltrop
You are being notified because you participated in a previous AN/I report about this editor. Another report has been filed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I happened to glance through the current AN/I thread ... A suggestion for-future-reference and such: In case you're not already aware, is not an admin, she just likes to stalk the boards and interject and ... well, you've experienced her methods and what she presents as reasoning. You're under no onus to respond to her there. In fact doing so, IMHO, may at times risk muddling and sidetracking a thread. ––A Fellow Editor– 13:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that information User:A Fellow Editor! --Jobrot (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point (multiple years into) in my editing experience on Wikipedia I've found editors to have widely varying sensibilities and community socio-political status (and, sadly, those don't always align as one might hope/expect) ... I now most always check a user's "View user groups" and "Logs">"Block logs" info links (offered in sidebar when on userpages in the desktop browser interface) before interacting with them. Here's yours: User groups management, Block log. A sort of assume good faith while also pragmatically checking for supporting data approach.


 * If one feels an incentive to be more thorough, a glance at their userpage and their user talkpage – and talkpage history (especially if their are indications of frequent archiving/deletion) – can help get a sense of what one's 'getting into' and a quick random skim through "User contributions" may offer insight as well (even if just to get a sense of their communication style in edit summaries). ––A Fellow Editor</b></b>– 08:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use sources that do not support the statement provided in the text
You are acting like a vandal. Stop making unconstructive edits and stop ignoring my edit summaries. Nergaal (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your sources were ultimately knocked down, the section remains academic. --Jobrot (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible Move
Wouldn't the section "Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory" find a more appropriate home here? -- Sleyece (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No. --Jobrot (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , you made it a point to put on your User page that the section does not belong on this page. You also tried to make a complete article on the subject that does not comply with Wikipedia Policy. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * My talk page would be the correct place to go if you want to have a discussion about me. --Jobrot (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , I'm just trying to point out that you gave a flat "No." to something that you are putting an inordinate amount of effort into acomplishing in your own way. Sleyece (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I've moved this thread to my talk page, as you seem intent on discussing my views, rather than providing arguments for your own. In answer to your statements: No I'm not trying to move the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section. The overwhelming number of sources attempt to tie it to The Frankfurt School, so that page seems appropriate. --Jobrot (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RETIRED
--Jobrot (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Please cease immediately from abusing the article talk page, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 08:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Last chance. El_C 08:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm retired. I don't want to be here. I don't want to be at "work" right now - you guys don't pay me enough ($0). Ergo please stop harassing me here. --Jobrot (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Block
Since you have ignored my last warning, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for disruptive editing. The talk page is neither the place for obituaries, nor is it the place for polemics. It is intended for making specific suggestions on how to improve the article. Please do better. El_C 10:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work declaring my friend Trent still alive - you fucking moron. --Jobrot (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Trent Schroyer is clearly still a biography so the template Template:WikiProject Biography clearly still belongs. The correct thing to do if the subject is deceased would be to change living=y to living=n. However you should first consider whether blpo should be applied. If you can't be bothered checking, it's IMO better to just leave the parameter as yes, as it does no harm having it. Remember that although the parameter may be 'living', the Template:BLP doesn't actually say anything about the subject of a biography being alive. It just says BLP applies to the article because it contains information on living persons. Which the article on Trent Schroyer does, although IMO not enough to require the template so I didn't apply blpo. Remember also WP:BDP means that BLP concerns can arise when a subject is recently deceased. Definitely removing the template WikiProject template is far worse than simply living it with the parameter living=y. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. I have added this template so it also provides you with unblock-instructions, etc. --MrClog (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal
Hi Jobrot, I would caution against making legal threats, be they on or offwiki, per WP:LEGALTHREATS. If you intend to initiate legal proceedings against the Wikimedia Foundation, I would recommend seeking professional council as they will know what to do. Going into #wikipedia-en-unblock and threatening legal action if you are not unblocked is not the way to go about this. Per policy, legal threats could result in the opposite effect of further/prolonged blocking. Contact information for the Foundation's legal department can be found on this page. --Regards, The SandDoctor  Talk 23:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * By not resolving this amicably via discussion, you're just forcing the world into a later schism. But yeah, okay. Whatever. If you guys want conspiracy theories to continually flourish around here, and to be continually attracting problem users how aren't WP:HERE to build an open, free and fair encyclopedia (to the point of allowing someone who doesn't know the originator of the term "Cultural Marxism" is banning discussion of the originator of the term "Cultural Marxism") - if you want that perception of bias to always be following you; then sure - let political admins bully people on pages against their political interest. I'm not here to create another bias machine. I'm not serving the same thing you and El_C are, sorry.


 * I serve the public, accurate and unbiased information in times of struggle. I'll do that somewhere else now. --Jobrot (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It's actually generally very appropriate for someone who doesn't have an existing understanding of the topic to be one taking action, since it reduces the chance they are biased by their existing views. That said, in this case I think it's easy even for those with an existing understanding of the topic, whatever their understanding was, to see your talk page commentary was inappropriate. As I indicated at ANI it gave no useful suggestion on improving the article. If you want to "serve the public, accurate and unbiased information in times of struggle" on wikipedia, you should do so by providing useful suggestions on how to improve articles citing reliable secondary sources and explaining what you want to add and why the sources support the addition and relevance of the information to the article. You post didn't do that in any meaningful way, instead it was just a completely offtopic probably WP:COPYVIO obituary which didn't even include information relevant to the article. (Your follow up without the obituary was similar, primary consisting of attacking another editor and making a random comment, with no discernible suggestion of improvement to the article.) To be clear, this means discussion of 'the originator of the term "Cultural Marxism"' is only suitable on article talk pages if it relates to improving the article. For the Frankfurt School article, it's quite likely the article will include almost no information on the 'the originator of the term "Cultural Marxism"'. It may be appropriate to include information on the 'origination' of the term and so discussion of what to include, in reference to reliable secondary sources may be ontopic. But personal biographical information on the originator is of likely to be of limited relevance. As I said on ANI, while we have sympathies to the friends and family of the person in question, it doesn't mean posting their obituary all over the place is appropriate. From the main page, I can see Recent deaths: Heather Harper Billy McNeill Polly Higgins Hannelore Elsner Wu Yili, but while their families and friends have our sympathies, we aren't positing their probably copyrighted obituaries anywhere either. We recognise them in a few small other ways. Actually on that point, a good way to recognise someone is to get their article up to scratch. Trent Schroyer is currently a fairly poor article by wikipedia standards. Only 2 of the 6 sources are independent from the subject. (The other 4 seem to be their books.) One of those 2 doesn't even seem to mention the subject. It needs a lot of work. Someone like you could do that work, rather than trying to spam a copyrighted obituary in all over the place. If you did do so, and got the article up to FA status, it would hopefully be on the main page as TFA one day. This is surely far more meaningful than spamming an obituary. Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * One final comment, I had a quick look at the talk page archives and from what I saw, there is little dispute that Trent Schroyer did use the term cultural marxism. But his usage of the term has almost no relation to the right wing conspiracy theory our article covers. His meaning was mostly or completely different, and there's a very good chance the majority by far of the people who believe in the conspiracy theory have never heard of Schroyer or read his work. I suspect there's a good chance their usage didn't even originate from his usage, it was coined independently. Regardless, my reading of the article on the person suggests they'd probably be offended by linkage of their work to the conspiracy theory. (Which doesn't of course means we should hide a connection if one exists.) Since you seem concerned with recognising Schroyer, I'm not sure why you're so fixated on trying to link Schroyer to some crazy conspiracy theory. Whatever, that's up to you, but the community seems to have roundly rejected your attempts to link the two, and you spamming a random obituary which doesn't even mention the term did nothing useful. As I said, if you really are concerned about the person's legacy your best first step is probably to try to get his article up to FA quality. As for the wider question of adding info on the guy's work to other articles in appropriate contexts (i.e. not linking them to crazy conspirary theories), you'd need to provide good sourcing to demonstrate they are significant enough to add. Concentrating as you seem to have done on Schroyer's work is actually likely a mistake if this is you goal. If the only person who ever used the term in that context is Schroyer, it likely means his work in that area has not yet caught on and so is not significant enough to add to anywhere else except maybe his article. It would need to be well covered elsewhere by others if it was really something significant in the field, not just by one person. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)