User talk:I am One of Many/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Speedy deletion declined: StarMade

Hello I am One of Many, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of StarMade, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is about software that has not been released. The article describes it then tells the user and provides links to where to buy it. It can't get more promotional than that. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello: I am One of Many, From James Stodgel

In regards to being put up for speedy deletion. I just began the process of putting information into and creating a wiki describing the work of Only Green Design. I understand your concern of it being promotional and will do my best to maintain unbiased or neutral standing. Thanks for calling that out. I am only attempting to put forward a resource that documents the work we have accomplished that may help others in their pursuit of ecological education and environmental awareness building.

Only Green Design is a non-profit organization founded in Kosovo by Paul Schuren, Femke Dekker, Burim Gagicaa, and James Stodgel in 2012. This organization is environmental education and ecological design non-profit working in the areas of conflict resolution and peace building in post conflict societies through youth empowerment projects in the public space of urban areas in Kosovo, The United States, Serbia, and South Africa. The organization finds groups of multi-ethnic youth from various communities and brings them together in a design process culminating in the construction of ecological architecture installations created from upcycled and abandoned materials. "Culture Shack," the Mikser Festival Urban Bundle Pavillion was constructed as an educational workshop with Albanian, Serbian, and German architecture students in Belgrade Serbia (http://commonprojectsworkshops.blogspot.com/p/urban-bundle.html)

These projects serve as educational examples for the surrounding community while simultaneously beautify space and empower youth participants assisting in the design and build.

Joe Stodgel (James Stodgel's brother) is working in the fields of up-cycling and alternative waste management in South Africa and recently completed the 2nd annual Trash to Treasure Festival (http://trashtotreasurefest.org/) in Grayton, South Africa in which they rehabilitated the local dumping site and turned it into a green space park. The non-biodegradable waste stream collected from the dump was stuffed by local members of the community into plastic bottles called Eco-Bricks which are incorporated into construction projects and buildings. The concept of Eco-Bricks are being used all over the developing world as an inexpensive and highly insulative building material used to construct schools and other social projects.

I am working on developing the content for this neutral encyclopedic entry and will need to have people assist in editing the content to make sure it is not promotional or biased.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.28.112 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello: I am One of Many, From James Stodgel

In regards to being put up for speedy deletion. I just began the process of putting information into and creating a wiki describing the work of Only Green Design. I understand your concern of it being promotional and will do my best to maintain unbiased or neutral standing. Thanks for calling that out. I am only attempting to put forward a resource that documents the work we have accomplished that may help others in their pursuit of ecological education and environmental awareness building.

Only Green Design is a non-profit organization founded in Kosovo by Paul Schuren, Femke Dekker, Burim Gagicaa, and James Stodgel in 2012. This organization is environmental education and ecological design non-profit working in the areas of conflict resolution and peace building in post conflict societies through youth empowerment projects in the public space of urban areas in Kosovo, The United States, Serbia, and South Africa. The organization finds groups of multi-ethnic youth from various communities and brings them together in a design process culminating in the construction of ecological architecture installations created from upcycled and abandoned materials. "Culture Shack," the Mikser Festival Urban Bundle Pavillion was constructed as an educational workshop with Albanian, Serbian, and German architecture students in Belgrade Serbia (http://commonprojectsworkshops.blogspot.com/p/urban-bundle.html)

These projects serve as educational examples for the surrounding community while simultaneously beautify space and empower youth participants assisting in the design and build.

Joe Stodgel (James Stodgel's brother) is working in the fields of up-cycling and alternative waste management in South Africa and recently completed the 2nd annual Trash to Treasure Festival (http://trashtotreasurefest.org/) in Grayton, South Africa in which they rehabilitated the local dumping site and turned it into a green space park. The non-biodegradable waste stream collected from the dump was stuffed by local members of the community into plastic bottles called Eco-Bricks which are incorporated into construction projects and buildings. The concept of Eco-Bricks are being used all over the developing world as an inexpensive and highly insulative building material used to construct schools and other social projects.

I am working on developing the content for this neutral encyclopedic entry and will need to have people assist in editing the content to make sure it is not promotional or biased.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.28.112 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably is a very worthy cause and organization. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and until Only Green Design achieves notability, it doesn't belong here. In addition, Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything good or bad. You were blocked because you were promoting your organization under a promotional name (the name of the organization). Your only chance of getting unblocked is to request a name change, acknowledge that you understand that you were engaged in promotion, and that you won't do it in the future.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Merrick County redux

I'm going through your Merrick County NRHP articles, touching them up and then giving them ratings. In the course of working on Heber Hord House, I found a nice source that you didn't cite: a Nebraska History article on the Hord family. It was published in 1989, but apparently wasn't put online until this last May. I put a citation to it in the Hord house article, but there's lots more material that could be incorporated into that article.

Don't know how closely you've been paying attention to WikiProject NRHP, but User:Dudemanfellabra recently created a terrific progress page, at WP:NRHPPROGRESS. The rightmost of the three maps shows the frequency of articles for each county rated Start or above. Thanks to your efforts, Merrick County will show up as a deep orange spot in the middle of a sea of blue, once I've finished rating the articles and once the map's been updated. Ammodramus (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The amount of time I have varies throughout the year, but I'm still paying attention and will have burst of participation.

Hello: I am One of Many, From KEBEnter

Hello one of many, sorry my attempt at an article was too promotional! This is my first attempt to write a wiki. I have spent more time reading the organizations guidelines and wikipedia's NPOV. I am trying to add more companies to this page: List of Utah Companies. I am biased to Lehi, UT though so I was focusing on companies in that town. My next attempt will be the Lehi Roller Mills. Zija seems to be the biggest economic force in Lehi and the Roller Mills is the most historic. Please let me know if I can still attempt to recreate the Zija International page or if I should just request that page be written. If you give me the chance to recreate the Zija page I will dig much deeper and find more credible sources outside of "online" references.

Please let me know either way so I can keep moving forward. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.67.74 (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Red Forman

Please see talk page. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This is not the way we do things on Wikipedia. If you think it is not notable, then nominate it for AfD.I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is two people who have agreed. Myself and RadioFan. That makes it two agreed to redirect and one against. That pretty much calls it a consensus. I am sure if RadioFan was redirecting them you would not be reverting them or threatening me with threats of vandalism, which is a WP:NONO so please stop reverting edits and saying what is not a consensus when you cannot count that there is two for redirect and one against. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not enough. Take it to AfD, it has been around a while. What is the hurry? If you are right, it will be redirected or deleted. If not, it will stay.I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it will be enough in the next few days if no one else comments as with Laurie Forman which was consensus with only four people for the same reason. So three to four is enough. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at That '70s Show talk page. There is no consensus and the view is that if taken to AfD, it will not be delete. Moreover, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. Again, you have to take it to AfD if you want to redirect it or delete it.I am One of Many (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay you are not reading it, you are just trying to agrue me, so here is what you are missing:

If notability cannot be established than the pages need to be redirected. Only Michael Kelso has reasonable references (beyond the show itself, which does not establish notability at all). These pages have been tagged with notability concerns for over a year and no progress has been made, it's time to redirect them all (except Michael Kelso) --RadioFan (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So there is two for redirect, myself and RadioFan. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

So as I wrote here:

So far it is two for redirect and one against. If no one else comments within the next few days it will be considered consensus and remaining page, Red Forman, will be reverted to this page. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That will be on the 30th as that'll be a week from the start of the conversation and Red Forman will need to be redirected, it has no reliable sources and is fails many Wikipedia guides along with WP:Notability and should have been redirected a long time ago. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you not notice that? That is two people myself and RadioFan for redirect. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend pointed out an important principle on Wikipedia that it doesn't work on a deadline. In AfD, the standard time is one week to make a decision. Just take it easy, if there is a consensus for your view, it will emerge.I am One of Many (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You just like arguing I am done with this it is under discussion on the talk page there are two people for redirect and on the 30th the page needs to be redirected if no one else comments on it. You have not added to the converstion there is no changing that. So either way when the 30th comes consensus will probably 2 for redirect so that is what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please also see WP:Article development and you can see that several pages do not meet the qualifications. As well as WP:Reliable. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the articles have problems, but keep in mind that the way things work here is by consensus and that is a slow process. I don't want to discourage you, but rather give you guidance on how things are done here.

Hello

Hello, please do not remove unsourced edits in this article (Serbs in Romania). I know that is the policy in most cases, but it is hard to find sources in English and those edits were not controversial or anything, they just lack the source. They are objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.106.254.165 (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to have English sources. If you do have reliable sources, please add them. Thanks.I am One of Many (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the sub article about Genetically Modified Food Controversy

Hello, In regards to the sub article which I was adding information to because of the lack of information it contained, I would like to know the reason which it was rejected. You said not to "add sources" from sites on the internet when there were obviously other articles which came from the internet; most of which were not even from notable associations or institutions but rather from press outlets like the New Yorker, which are notoriously and unavoidably inaccurate. Why is it that I cite an alternative press source (which has official sources sited) or a study published by a University or Academy and it is deemed an "unacceptable" or "unreliable" source? This makes me feel as if the person deeming them so has a particular bias towards a particular angle regarding this subject which contradicts the very purpose of Wikipedia; to provide a free, unbiased, and reliable source for information of all sides. Thank you, and please allow me to revise this article, I'm deeply offended that it seems I can be so easily phased out and my perspective so quickly rejected on this topic just because someone else has a personal bias towards my view.

The reason I reverted your edits had nothing to do with their content. You copied their content from other websites on the Internet. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. You must write content entirely in your own words (even close paraphrasing is not acceptable) and with reliable sources. I hope that helps. I am One of Many (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Puyo Pop Tetris

You are mistaken. I got the header formatting wrong. Please look at the references next time. There is even a page right here on wikipedia, Puyo Puyo which says the same sort of thing.

...You are not a bot are you? 2605:E000:9FC0:0:6C0A:E7DA:CA4B:5F1E (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources you use aren't the most reliable, but you can revert it with an explanation in the summary. Some people think I'm a bot, but really my brain incorporates the latest advances in AI. I am One of Many (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You can of course, look it up yourself, there are gameplay videos, trailers, and several news blogs reporting on it. 2605:E000:9FC0:0:6C0A:E7DA:CA4B:5F1E (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Polaris expedition edits

Hi there, I see your revert. Actually, it was just late night and I forgot to log in; it wasn't meant to be an anonymous edit. The article had an understandable minor error confusing Hall and Budington.I'll try to fix it with good references and while logged in. Anyway, I'll be doing some other edits to this and related articles as I am doing a little reading and research from various sources about the expedition right now. Thanks for your work maintaining Wikipedia. Cheers!--Lizzard (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding info about Rick Harrison

Hello! I apologize, as I am relatively new to editing anything on Wiki. I am related to Rick. My daughter is Jennifer Harrison. Everything I stated is true, not gossipy. I don't know how to cite it other than by stating it's the truth. We've known the Harrison family long before "Pawn Stars" ever was broadcast. Our children all grew up together. Please instruct me about how to edit and cite facts properly. Thanks! M. Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.150.238 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

M. Ross, do you have any sources? They don't have to be online? The reason we need reliable sources is to protect people like Rick. We do it for them. I hope that helps. I am One of Many (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, and with sincere apologies, I can cite marriage records, birth records, or even photos? I honestly don't know how or what to cite as a source ;-) Thanks so much for your assistance and time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.150.238 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked over what you would like to add. Was there a wedding announcement for Adam Harrison and Jennifer Lambert in a news paper? Was there a birth announcement in a newspaper? I believe those would do. I am One of Many (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
	I hope you accept! - Wes Mᴥuse 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You have immediately reverted an edit at Steroids, twice...

...without viewing the Talk page to see the reasoning. Please restore my edit, removing the text, until you discuss my reasoning on the talk page! LeProf

Please explain why you are deleting content? If you plan to rewrite a section, say so. I am One of Many (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of deletion appeared co-incident with the deletion (delta-t < 3 mins); see Talk section at Steroids above your reply comment. Slow down. Look before YOU leap. LeProf.

You should explain why you add or remove content in edit summaries. It is also good to do on the article talk page. We can't just allow people to remove content without explanation. I have no idea at this point whether you are competent to edit on this topic, but I will assume good faith and see what you do. I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop writing and look at the immediately, coincidently posted Steroid Talk section, entitled: "Following text removed, for later replacement at appropriate position...". Please note its time stamp, relative to all your later posts. The explanation was given as you were reverting, or before. Please. LeProf.

Tila Tequila

Tila does not actually have a record label, she made that up. She makes up a lot of things. She doesn't have a management firm either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.49.180.8 (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that say exactly this, then it can be included, if not is strictly a WP:BLP violation. I am One of Many (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work in reverting vandalism! I've noticed that you haven't received a barnstar in a while. You really do deserve this for the contributions you have made. Darylgolden(talk) 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am One of Many (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I was like "Huh?" when you reverted me, but than I saw your revert.[1] I was concerned because the wording change. Glad to see it's resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again I'm sorry about that. I was looking through the revisions to see what the IPs were up to and when I got back to the current version, I somehow confused the order of changes! After I made the revert, I look at the result and said to myself "What the hell?". Anyway, I'm glad I caught my mistake. Cheers.

Wrong Guy

You got the wrong guy.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct! I hit the wrong link. Please accept my sincere apology. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ok. I just though I'd let you know.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi, I noticed you'd recently made a revert here and when I saw that you were interested in anti-vandalism activities I thought you might be interested in some background reading. No need to take any action if you aren't interested or haven't the time. This is just informational. Thanks for your help on the project, and happy editing! -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thibbs, when I'm not in the mood to develop content, I do like to work against vandalism and kind of subtle vandalism that is hard to find. There are a number of IPs out there like the one you point out. All of its edits should be reverted. There are two grounds for this. The long history of vandalism associated with this IP and that it seems to be stable of the long term. The second, which isn't necessarily vandalism, is making unsourced and unexplained changes (no explanation in edit summaries or talk pages). Obviously, Wikipedia loses credibility with these types of changes. I'll take a close look at the IP in question I am One of Many (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That IP was engaged in long-term subtle serial vandalism. I've requested a long block. I am One of Many (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Death by burning article

Just wondering why you reverted this edit -- is the Genesis citation incorrect? Yours, Quis separabit? 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason was that it wasn't a proper source. It is ok to cite the Bible, but the claim made was an interpretation. A Biblical scholarly source should be cited to avoid synthesis or original research. If your happy with it, I'm not going to revert again but I think finding a better source would produce a better article. I am One of Many (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no, I left it as you did. I was just curious. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my only reason is that leaving it as changed would not solve the problem of finding a reliable secondary source. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct Coordinates for the Abbottabad Compound.

The coordinates given in the article originally were incorrect. Those coordinates were about 700 meters to the west of the actual compound. The correct coordinates are 34°10′09.51″N 73°14′32.78″E although I don't have any external sources to prove this this, generally the military doesn't pass out coordinates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.125.14 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) c

Ok, we have a lot of people randomly changing coordinates, so we at least like to have explanations for changes. Thanks and Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Portland Film Festival

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Portlandfilm/Portland film festival, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Portlandfilm (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving feedback. We'd appreciate any changes or updates you might suggest. Was there something wrong? We copied several other festivals to insure a similar format. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlandfilm (talk • contribs) 02:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are suppose to contest a speedy deletion on your talk page. The problems are (1) you can't promote things on Wikipedia and (2) your user name is essentially the name of the festival. If you are only here to promote the festival, then Wikipedia is the wrong venue. I am One of Many (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see...

...in Talk:Natural product, section Errors in lead, 1, and continue to follow the mess that you have contributed to, through your reverting and defending reversions in articles where you lack content expertise. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, you did not source the content you added. Also, your lead was far too narrow for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia must also consider non-strictly biochemical approaches to natural products, such as in the natural product industry. I suggest either elaborating the biochemical approach in additional sections in the current article or creating a separate article that focuses on all aspects of the biochemical approach to natural products.

What was the motive in your...

... reverting a new, good lead for a deeply flawed old one, at Natural product? The excuses given are clear, but they cannot hold, even on superficial examination. Are you completely biased against non-logging editors -- though Mr Wales allows this, and though I have very good reasons to come from a consistent IP but not to log? It should be clear that one citation and solid academic content with numerous wikipedia cross references cannot be SPAM. The single reference to an association was the opposite of SPAM, to make clear that the commercialization of the term was not going to be honoured in the article. And there was no cribbed text. I am a subject matter expert, and this is a lead; all material was generated de novo, by me, from no source. Leads are intended to be citation free, mirroring cited material later in the text. Please, accept you jumped the gun, and honour the hard work I did, and replace my reversion. I even made clear in the Talk what I was doing! LeProf

I want to encourage you to contribute. I'll assume you are an academic, I don't understand why you don't include sources as you write? Academics are obsessed about including sources. The one source you did include went to a site that you did use as a reference was only there to sell "natural products". So, I do want you to contribute to Wikipedia and I'll be happy to help if I can, but please add sources. I am One of Many (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that leads do not need to be ref'd if material also appears in main body. While some main body work is needed, the new lead is authoritative, and thoroughly linked to other sourced Wikipedia articles. The few needed main body sources that might be needed can easily follow. (And yes, I am completely obsessed with citations, ask Bohog.) Please see my petition at Talk for the Natural product article, to move this forward. No response needed here. Merci. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for butting in here, but the above is a misrepresentation of what I wrote here . If the body already contains appropriate citations, then citations in the lead are not necessary. However this is not the case with the current version of the Natural product article. One of Many was entirely correct is questioning the uncited material added by 50.179.92.36. In subsequent versions of the article, I have worked hard at inserting appropriate high quality citations in the lead. Reverting to the version supplied by 50.179.92.36 would be a step backwards. Boghog (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My full case on this is stated in Natural product talk. I simply dropped by here to alert I am One of Many that all has been said, and it appears you are needed as the deciding voice here, as one who made the original revert, and as one who can stand outside of this with some objectivity. References can be added to my work, if they need be. Hours of others hard work should not be blown-up for lack of references given the WP on lead referencing and the fact that refs. can be requested through normal means—esp. not on the argument of an editor who allows longstanding lacks of references in his other articles, and who arrives on the NP scene, an article he has no record of editing, just as I begin to work. He has worked hard, why? And why now? Why not a week ago, before I turned attention to it? No, this is too petty for words. I trust this to I am One of Many. Nothing more, ever, to say to Bohog.

And as I said on the article talk page, editing on Wikipedia does not have to be a stressful process. Please realize that editing here requires some give and take. I'm sure that once you become more familiar with the Wikipedian style of editing, your editing experiences will go more smoothly. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My final plea to you to reverse your initial decision to revert my dedicated lead re-write effort, and give me time to provide the requested references, and to prevent this injustice, is on the NP Talk page. Please reject it if you must. Bohog has jumped in for additionally air-time there, after my plea, so look at the entry from me, about third from the bottom, maybe fourth.

If you do not reverse your decision, I may raise this specific matter to some other adjudication, given Bohog's showing up at an article I had chosen, first time ever, just after I had done work. But I expect, if Bohog's edits are allowed to remain, there is nothing for me to contribute there. He is stubborn in his viewpoints, and you have given him the edge of being the new status quo. He knows well how to wield WPs and reverts to maintain what he wants, when he sets his sights on an article. So goodbye NP. But the stalking is another matter, for I need to be safe to work without his following. Likely, I'm done with the pettiness. It simply is not worth life and time. Cheers to you and good luck. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that I'm not going to revert my revert. I would be violating the very policy that I'm trying to follow. Moreover, Bohog has already been helping you out. This is the way it works at Wikipedia. I realize that it may be frustrating when you first come here, but please understand that we are cooperating within the policy guidelines of Wikipedia. Just take a deep breath and start working with Bohog, I think you will find that it really does work. Best of luck. I am One of Many (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, to start, let me reiterate what I said at NP article talk. I am not new. I am on my second login. The first was retired because an editor that I corrected did the legwork to figure out my University, and outed my professional information, making me fully visible. (Same reason I only rarely formally log.) See my user page, but soon; it'll close it when I go. Other reason I don't log, is that I am not a part of the community that believes in the awarding most of what goes on here. One good edit of substance with full citations is worth hundreds of what most do here, and quality/accuracy/scholarly content is not recognized or awarded. And that there is no penalty (as they might say in the law) for reversed rulings... Sorry, fundamentally don't believe in any of it. Rewards wrong things, incentivizes a lot of the nonsense here. I'm just a content expert and generator, believing in strongly referenced, accurate text (science mostly), fighting plagiarism in all its guises, even the subtle ones.

That said, let's recap (since others are likely destined to hear a version of this):

My text was reverted because you thought it was spam, but you learned it was not (and could earlier have looked to see 2 prior Talk entries about the ongoing edit, or asked a subject matter expert on natural products if suspicious, where laughter would have ensued).... My text was reverted because you thought it perhaps plagiarized, and you're clear now it wasn't (with Boghog's Steroids article and myriads of others at Wikipedia rampant throughout with un-cited text and lead referencing mistakes—here, against a principled, citation-neurotic faculty member, who's read, is committed to, and mostly followed Wikipedia:CREATELEAD, and understands his work is not yet perfect, against him you must hold the line)... And my lead must remain reverted though I offer to add refs to the lead (or corresponding text and refs to the main body) to allow it to survive, but you also decline to give time/allow this solution... And the decision not to return my lead is not impacted by the fact that, instead of waiting on lead editing so you could make a fair decision, Boghog adds rapid edits to make the earlier citation-free lead version look stronger, and this is mutually respectful editor practice, no impact... And the decision not to return my lead is not altered by the fact that in his rapid edits Boghog does not follow other Wikipedia:CREATELEAD rules, for instance, that "there should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body" (10 of 12 in Boghog's rush-to-lay-calim lead refs., essentially all since there were 2 to start, do not appear in body), and this too is OK relative to my sin of omission.... And the decision remains unaltered, though you know from tags and history that this article was ignored—by all since April, and from eternity by Boghog—and that I was first to arrive at article since then, and this sheds no further light on issues.... And the decision remains unaltered, though you can tell from history of the edits and subsequent conversation that there is history between Boghog and I, and that he clearly appears to be "following" an editor from one article to another (with the WP:HAR flags that should be raising), but still, this merits no reconsideration.... And the decision remains unaltered while Boghog cuts up my dormant lead, like the mob fighting over a dead man's clothes, while we are yet talking about reversion, tucking pieces of it around the article, mostly without citations, but this too is OK in terms of basic editor respect, WP, etc....

My take on this: you both are standing together on WP rules, selectively. You were asked to be objective: Left pan of the of judicial scale, new lead without citations where some are already in text (so unnecessary) and editor is willing to add more; right pan of scale, old lead with incorrect content and one citation. But wait, super-Boghog to the rescue, right pan of scale now becomes revamped old lead plus 12 new refs and bulked up text the way he wants the lead to read. But wait, should this even be considered? Is Boghog not jumping the gun, offer this when the decision should be between the first two? Is he arguing from "facts not in evidence"? And then, what of Boghog's violation—easily checked, go to the article refs., and look how many of first 12 are cited more than once—is this revamped old lead not breaking another rule of the WP, even more clearly? And what of the suspicious "following" me to Natural product—what is his motivation, to come to an article for first time just when an editor he's conflicted with elsewhere begins new work?

So, forgive me if I just don't buy the argument for his pristine "only content matters" and your claim that restoring my lead would be "violating ... policy" that is sacrosanct. This matter requires judgment, and you are clearly selectively applying policy, ignoring some facts for others. My question is why. I'd rather you would be honest and say, "he logs, you don't..." "You're a pain, he's not ..." "I know him from..., you're new ..." and so you're giving the benefit of the doubt to him.

Bottom line, there was a call to be made, one based on fairness, and I propose you blew it. Same time, Boghog's behaviour is near WP:HAR and you are tolerating. Don't stand on WP. I'm not new, I'm rebellious, stubborn, but not a fool. His behaviour is atrocious, and your decision capricious. I will see where things like this are supposed to go next, but I not hopeful. Know in parting that both your entreaties about welcome ring hollow. This is why content matter experts leave. This world is for the likes of Boghog, and I'm not long for it. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the history of editing between you and Boghog. I came across you edits in both articles by chance. I was patrolling new IP edits for problems. It is amazing but in my estimation, 50% of all IP edits are problematic. I may be biased against IP edits, but I try my best not to be. I'm also sorry about attempts at outing you, that should never happen. Here is what I would do if I were you (this is just how I would try to handle the situation). I would copy what I wrote from the article history into my sandbox. I would then add the references I thought were appropriate. I would then look at what Boghog wrote and see if I could integrate some or all of it. Then I would discuss it in the talk page and see if I could get consensus to put it in. Finally, I don't disagree with you that there are problems with Wikipedia editing policies, but this is the system we have to work in, so my view is to figure out how to work within the system. I am One of Many (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep this brief. My opinion, you blew it, taking weak leadership (reverting without checking Talk), then failing to take strong leadership when it was needed (reversing course after you saw the earlier Talk and understood my credentials and reliability, or at least asking to Boghog to stop editing while we were discussing).

Result is a muddied situation that demands true leadership/boldness, and understandably, you are not willing to act in such a manner now—I say boldness, because the facts are absolutely clear—a, old lead was deficient; b, my new lead was solid but needed refs; c, talk was not checked before reverting; d, assumption of spam and plagiarism was unsubstantiated, yet reversion not reverted; e, order of editor arrival at article: me, you, Boghog, so I am and LeProf should have been leading, not Boghog; f, first on scene, a qualified, interested editor was not given chance through talk and tags, to improve work created; g, meanwhile a revamped lead was created surreptitiously by follower Boghog; h, despite all simple WP-based arguments, current is not better than reverted: existing lead continues in violation for 8 of 11 citations in lead not in body; etc. Hence there were/are two reasons to return my lead, first, because it should have been done earlier, when I offered to add my citations; and second, now, since there is clear evidence his lead is still in violation of the Wikipedia:CREATELEAD rules you declare as sacrosanct.

Instead, you say I should seek a consensus ... but there will be no LeProf going to the article in that way. No one except me had been at site since April. I went there to work days ago, and sandboxed and worked for hours. You went there for a moment's satisfaction to correct me. Bodog arrives only later (true motive for later discussion). There are three parties for the moment, only two when you retreat back to your reverting duties. There is no path to consensus here, since you did not step up. What was and is still needed is firm judgment and action. And if you could not take in initially, I don't expect it now, that it's even harder.

Bottom line, this both ends here, but it does not. (1) Your proposal is a nonstarter. I should have been addressed respectfully in talk, not by reversion, given time to add refs via talk; later comers should then coming and discussing, and adapting their ideas to the initiative I took. Your actions have turned things on their head, unacceptably: You mucked the path here, putting the following editor in the position to accept/reject future changes to his status quo. Never should have happened, and I will not submit to the injustice. (2) Boghog's behaviour here needs scrutiny, at as high a level as I can manage to access. My being outed earlier was given a pass / slap of wrist, because it was reviewed in a session, all friends welcome and voting. None of that here. Following me to the NP article to cause trouble is beginnings of WP:HAR, and it will be reviewed. (3) The pattern of quick reversions and then no subsequent leadership also needs looking at. The system makes it too easy to act quickly but wrongly, then offers little incentive to do the hard work to clear up messes created. A light needs to shine on this, and it will. Bias against non-loggers is only the beginning of the issue. Lack of leadership, inability to alter course, all of this needs discussion.

All this said, it is Boghog's world, your world, and I am not long for it. Soon, I'll at least cancel and start again, to shake the stalker. But likely this is it for me. This was supposed to be institutional public serrvice. Apart from a few articles, one or two grown up colleagues, it has been a nightmare. Science articles are unreliable, not remaining current, and experts find no welcome. I'd heard it all before coming; now I have the first hand experience. That's all from me. Sorry to ever have crossed paths. Been a waste for us both. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for your frustration, but I think you are making this much more difficult than it has to be. I have put a lot of work into articles just to have an editor come in and change things around and in ways I don't think are best. Instead of complaining, I think about how to work with such an editor to eventually get a better article. I find that patience and cooperation really does work here. I am One of Many (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've ceased trying to persuade, but at this hour, after this day, am feeling philosophical. So... Our words should mean something. Patience and cooperation require a commitment, at least to mutual respect toward an end. I have not experienced that from any WIkipedia party today, so you're appearing to offer just sentiment; a platitude, not substance. And how can you be sorry for something that you do not feel responsible for, or if responsible, how sorry if you cannot act to redress something within your power? No, I you were sorry, you would have taken action, of some sort. You're not fixing the problem you created here, arising from your actual commitment to, how shall we say, the "minimal-data-required" practice of reversion. Perhaps, if truly sorry, then committing yourself to no reversions without checking Talk beforehand? Or maybe committing yourself to immediately recheck and withdraw reversions if a protest is made by a real, reliable individual (still guilty until proven innocent, but better)? I think perhaps I was intended to experience your services twice in a couple of days, if only to be able to say these things clearly to you; from this and the Steroid experience, I know you act, somehow, in real time in response to edits (software-based trawling, I imagine). To what extent do you care about the non-approved by-catch you bring up in the dragnet—are you sorry, and if so, how will you act differently? ... No, no more platitudes. ... And I personally have no complaint. Complaining implies a perceived wrong in the context of unwillingness or inability to redress the wrong. It is not complaining to state conviction and act. I am stating the conviction that your efforts were, first, indifferent to right, and thereafter weak; and Boghog's, simply reprehensible. I am sorry that neither of you can see these things, but I will act on these convictions. No, no complaint. Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you will understand, after reading the two messages new to you today below, why I think action without adequate thought, followed by heartfelt words without action, taken together, to be hubris, or worse. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see... (in re: your sponsored plagiarism)

...in Talk:Natural product, section Source of lead/lede opening sentence plagiarism, the discovered source of the lead you returned to the Natural Product article through your reversion (i.e., the text from which it was plagiarized, the bald plagiarism of the lead you returned, and the sentence and more in the current lead that continues plagiarized as a result of your reversion and Boghog's scholarly work). Next time, you who accuse of plagiarism, run the web-based, free bloody plagiarism checkers on both the original and final texts before you act. It will perhaps win you less barnstars (because it will slow you down), but it will win you kudos under heaven, where it really counts (because it will return the innocent to its place, preceding guilty.

Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism is, unfortunately, far too common on Wikipedia. Sometimes it can be detected by web searches, but they often do not pick up plagiarized text that comes from scholarly journals. That is all the more reason revert large blocks of text that have the appearance of plagiarism. If the text is legit, it can always be reintroduced with proper reliable sources. I know perfectly well that if you submit a manuscript for publication and you fail to include references, it will be rejected. So, I advise you to get over it and stop blaming other people. If you source the content you add (just like you have to do in academia), you won't run into these kinds of problems. Wishing you the best with your editing. I am One of Many (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the plagiarism was in the opposite direction. The book (or at least the Amazon.com summary of the book) copied from the Wikipedia article (see discussion). Boghog (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That happens a lot these days! Good catch! Rand Paul's plagiarism of Wikipedia is one of the more famous recent cases.I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user (talk) page! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It is much appreciated!

what is your f*cking problem?

they are not socialites NOR Catholics and that guy scott has no trustable source of their "business" are you maybe a paid-under dog of theirs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.254.128.20 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your unconstructive edits such as "US-Americans" or you may be block for disruptive editing. I am One of Many (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

that is the actual CORRECT demonym acording to many English grammarians and you should get a new dictionary and be less agressive... ah GET a real job dearie! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.254.128.20 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Before you edit anymore, please read about how to edit on Wikipedia. You are incorrect and further changes can only be construed as vandalism. I am One of Many (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flow cytometry bioinformatics

Hi there. Thanks for reviewing my DYK entry. I've responded regarding the copyright issues you raised. I think they are resolved for now (since the original version of the article was CC-BY 2.5), but as mentioned there I will raise the CC-BY 4.0 issue with both PLoS and on WP:talk:FAQ/Copyright. -Kieran (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this, I think I've found a better solution to the immediate issue of the copyright issue for the article, in that I am the author and the original copyright holder, so was within my rights to release it on Wikipedia under the standard WP licenses. -Kieran (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion on Wikipedia about 4.0, but it is clear that you did originally copyright it as 3.0 [2]. I am One of Many (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Animal models of autism

Thanks. :-) Is there a procedure for retracting flawed DYKs? I reported the issue at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_the_current_or_next_Did_you_know... but I'm not sure if that's the best location. Sunrise (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think your solution was clearly the best thing that could be done. In fact, it might lead to a greater good by exposing this broader issue. Obviously, later, better examples of rat models should be introduced into the article. I am One of Many (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the exposure could definitely be a good thing. My main concern is the text of the hook itself, for readers who don't click through (or who do but don't find the statement). I assume there wouldn't be anything wrong with a resubmission later on with a different hook - I've added this to my comment at DYK. Sunrise (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

One more thing. :-) I don't mean to make too much of an issue about a simple oversight, but I left a note at WT:DYK as a reminder for editors. Logging off for the night now. Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I always try to assume good faith but it almost appears as though the author was trying to sneak that by. It is good to be aware that things like that can happen. I am One of Many (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Hardcastle

Hi there. I reverted this article back to my version yesterday as the only changes made were completely uncited. I was wondering, however, what made you add the {{autobiography}} tag here? I ask as I am the main contributor to this article by a fair way and I'm in NO way associated with him! Cheers Nikthestunned 09:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I came across it when I was looking at recent changes and I notices so many IPs making non-constructive edits. It looked like they had messed it up and it looked negative in places, so I just tried to get rid of what was negative and not obviously reliably sourced and tag other statements that needed sourcing. So, the bottom line is I was just trying to protect someone I knew nothing about, but I'm glad you are getting it back into shape. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the response - it sure was a mess at the time! I do agree with the {{ref improve}} at that revision, just unsure why the other. No worries anyways! Nikthestunned 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Africa Check

Harrias ^talk 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rabb

dear "i am one of many"

I would like to bring your kind attention to the removing/editing of my passage in the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father under Islam, for reasons of being without source citation. Please note what was stated in that passage is very fundamental and generic to the main Islamic belief, and needs no further reference for elaboration. The meanings of the content have already been expanded upon on your wiki article on "Rabb". I will greatly appreciate your reconsideration and in allowing the passage to be publicized again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.212.146 (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is no problem to add it, but you do have to cite a source. Keep in mind that many people no little to nothing about Islam. I don't, so I have to know with a source that you are not say attacking Islam. That is why sources are so important. I am One of Many (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

North korea disruption

there is an ip who repeatedly keep inserting unsoucred material in th lead of Politics of North Korea article, so can you please revert/block this user? he is inserting fake information north korea nominaly is a "democratic multiparty state" north korea is officialy a single party state as the workers party of korea is written so in the constitution 90.132.43.251 (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, so I reverted the IP. I'll leave a warning as well. I am One of Many (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited How Global Warming Works, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mechanism and Berkeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of How Global Warming Works

Just a quick note, I've reviewed your nomination of How Global Warming Works and have passed it. Hopefully it'll be on the mainpage soon! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And happy holidays and you being a new admin next year! I am One of Many (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for How Global Warming Works

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Southern Progress Corporation

One of Many:

The edits that I made to the article are based on information that is already cited in at the bottom of article. The note at the top states that there is inadequate citation, but duplicate citation of materials already cited seems to me to be overkill. There is a citation to a 2008 article about the departure of the four executives of Southern Progress corporation. So the current listing of them is incorrect. The circulation number I changed came from the Wikipedia listing of 2012 circulation figures for United States magazines. I went to the Alliance for Audit Media website to get the circulation for Coastal Living, which is not listed on Wikipedia. If one goes to the old Southern Progress website, the individual is shifted to the general Time, Inc. website and need to navigate to the Lifestyle Group page, which I provided, to learn about Southern Progress publications. I come to Wikipedia for accurate information. I actually donate money to Wikipedia to help it provide accurate information. When I see someone removing accurate information for some unknown reason I cannot help but believe that this venture is doomed and one that I will not waste my time in supporting. Charles Taylor

Global warming conspiracy theory

FYI, I have mentioned your name twice on Talk:Global_warming_conspiracy_theory with respect to my mistaken assertion about what you said in May 2013 about a phrase in the Background section (I retracted and apologized later), and in answer to a comment by Dmcq. I say "FYI" because I do not mean that I think you need to do anything.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and no problem! I am One of Many (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

North korea disruption again

the ip continues to revert on Politics of North Korea despite being warned, something must be done

meybe the article getting protected 90.129.78.148 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll see if they do it again. I am One of Many (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Marian Dawkins

You may discuss the case on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.53.242 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Steamroller

Hi. You reverted a recent edit on Steamroller as copyright violation. A sentence may have come from the Wikipedia article, Aveling and Porter, to which I have added an attribution. I went through the rest of the text, cross referencing with the original article and the page on farmcollector.com and as far as I could see, was all adequately reworded. Is that okay? Thanks.Noodleki (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Other site often copy Wikipedia, so if that is the case, that would explain why I found the text. Otherwise, I had no other problems. I am One of Many (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)