" 

 ===Bonus Question=== 

 You've given me some great advice. I hate ""letting go"" of my wikipedia screen name and WP:Vanishing, but truthfully I believe it's the most intelligent option. I really liked being so open about my involvement on facebook and predicting that particular NYTimes article, but if that's what I'm into, then maybe I should join a forum or something like that, lol. Indeed, I see what you're saying. I am feeling the hints that I should treat Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia where anyone can edit, and there are basic rules which help determine how the community judges an editor. If I stick to a ""basic editing style"" whereby I predictably cite WP:Policies at every corner and angle, then I'll be treated as a full fledged Wikipedian rather than a Korean, pro-OWS wiki-personality which I'm unable to break out of (without WP:Vanishing).  

 I really liked my ""shoot from the hip"" & ""tell it like it is"" type of style I built here. It helps other editors trust me, since they know my agenda is to help OWS and there's no subversiveness or duplicitykind of like how I trust editors more who lay down their political beliefs on their user page (such as my obama user box, or others who identify as liberal/conservative/michael-moore/ron-paul/etc...) but more on that later.  

 Can I ask, what percentage of your personality do you ""show"" here on Wikipedia? Like 50% or more like 10% because I really try to understand how much the ""wikipedia hat"" takes place of who they are in real life or on facebook. I've always treated Wikipedia sincerely since I believed it helps others recognize my real personality and my real passion. I'll probably wrap up my OWS editing career on this account before May 1st, and stick to my non-OWS articles like the Trayvon Martin shooting. (and then phase it out in a few weeks)  

 These insights will help give me greater understanding of what perspective my peers on Wikipedia have when editing the OWS articles, since that is where my core interest lies. I'm glad to know you're pro-OWS and hopefully would like to see Obama re-elected. I apologize for letting myself be convinced you wanted to poison/make-toxic an article I cared deeply about; but, since we're the #1 search result on google for Occupy Wall Street I felt like we're the #1 destination for managing the perception problems which OWS faces while it struggles to establish itself.  

 I'm so sorry that the movement has been a mixture of disappointment and success. The mere fact that no one is in charge gives the group an indeterminate figurehead. If you ask a random occupy protester who the leader of our movement is, they'll honestly say they don't know. That's why I'm careful about creating the NYCGA article for fear of disrupting the balance which our readers consume to formulate their narrative of the occupy movement. I don't want to disilluion the ignorant folks (like this poor schmuck) who support our movement for the completely wrong reasons! Do you know how scary it is that if we told the truth to our supporters we would lose a sizable majority of them? It's crazy how much the occupy wall street movement is able to appeal to people in unique, personal waysmuch like ""hope/change"" meant a different thing to different peopleall who rallied behind Obama. It's no longer working because OWS is losing its appeal (per the polling research in my ows article I cited on the ows talk page) which is only worsening as the media frenzy drowns itself in the Trayvon Martin news/entertainment 24-hour cycle.  

 Sorry if this post is ramblesomeI really studied my past interactions during my recent wikibreak and it feels good to lay down my honest thoughts & get great feedback from someone who wishes to empower me and supports my goal of improving the OWS articles. I just hope my time spent being involved in the OWS movement isn't all for naught. This was the liberals free opportunity to creating a political movement equally effective as the tea party; but, a handful of attention-whores & psychopaths (in leadership, no less) have been unable to protect the movement from their own self-interests, such as greed/fame/celebrity status. This ends with my paramount agreement in your statement that, ""Always be anonymous, always!"" because those are the people who have no vested interest and cannot steer a group cause toward a personal endeavor, no matter how good their intention is. I've learned a lot from the OWS movement, and I hope you have too. Thanks in advance,   "