User talk:I am One of Many/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Byzantine Battle Tactics

You replaced my edits, which simply removed something that is not only not historically accurate but is not reflective of scholarly work. The cited source by Bat Ye'or's is not an academic text but rather a right-wing polemical piece about the supposed historical roots of an alleged threat to christianity posed by Islam as a religion. It is not a work of serious scholarship and should not be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.27.4 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you removed sourced text. The source you removed appears to be reliable with a Wikipedia article on the book. I don't have a copy of the book, so I can check whether the content is a good summary of a thesis from the book, but I would suggest bringing up the issue on the talk page and see if there is a consensus for changing it. Note, this may take a while, but that is how Wikipedia works. I am One of Many (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Civility!!!

That asshole keeps changing my message so that it is a giant wall of text that nobody would want to read.

That is unacceptable, but I guess it is okay to bully anonymous users if you have an account.

That is no reason to call people names. Instead, you can, for example, go to their talk page and ask them not to change it because you believe it makes your comments less clear. I am One of Many (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I made it very clear his repeated fucking up of my message was not wanted. There was no reason to do it other than to be antagonistic.

The fact is that my reliable sources portray Trayvon Martin as a violent thug. The article is simply a white wash at best.

Andrew Hill High School

I would like to thank you for reverting the damage down to the article Andrew Hill High School which I have been hard at work editing for months. I apologize for reverting your fix, as I thought you were another one of the group attempting to delete portions of the article. Again, the assistance is appreciated. Zkidwiki (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you added material before I reverted. I'll give them warnings and keep a watch on the article for a while. Keep up the good work! I am One of Many (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Poetic chiastic structure in the Quran

Hi I'm attempting to update poetic chiastic structure in the Quran with reference to work by Prof Carl Ernst University of Chicago - his book demonstrates symmetrical structures in several surah's namely 2, 5, 60 and there are several other well known examples in the shorter surah's 29 and 98.

Thank you for your courteous approach and caution in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.1.215 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good and it is helpful to add edit summaries briefly describing what you are adding and sources. If you need any help, let me know. I am One of Many (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Phillip Paulwell

I am aware of the error and was in the process of editing it before your actions. I do hope you will revert it (and fix the error) as soon as possible.

Sincerely, --72.252.130.98 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I just notice that lots of people using IP addresses don't know how to fix it. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Delhi Daredevils

Hi I have removed two sections from the article - 2013 squad and former players. The Delhi Daredevils have not retained any player and will therefore go into IPL 7 with a clean slate. Everyone who was on their squad for the 2013 season could become a former player so that section is now irrelevant. We will have to revisit this after the IPL auction in February so the changes that I have made are correct. You will notice that I have amended the squads for the other IPL teams as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.88.48 (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, looks good. I just keep a watch for those who don't know what they are doing, but you do! Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 Elk River chemical spill

I am One of Many, thank you so much for your review of this article! I've added a free image to the hook, so that the article will be placed in the lead of the DYK section when it is moved to the queue. Could you please re-review and check it off with the free image? Also, let me know what you think of including the chemical structure? I thought it was more interesting than a snapshot of the Elk River! Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Caponer, again I want to congratulate you on the great article you produced. What do you think about using the bridge over the river picture instead? It better captures the essence of the article? I am One of Many (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Folk Mataraman Institute

This simply isn't the kind of stuff that warrants G11 speedy deletion — I run across lots of spammy userpages, and they're the ones like Priyeshrao007's now-deleted userpage: Providing a Complete Suite of IT Solutions, E-Commerce, Software development, Web Developments & Consulting.[line break]1. Managed IT Solutions[line break]2. Web Developments[line break]3. Hosting & Cloud Computing[line break]Helping you find the right IT solutions.[line break][URL]. I don't see this criterion being properly used for deleting something like FMI. On the other hand, I would be much more inclined to vote delete than keep if I found that the userpage had been sent to MFD. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly respect your opinion, but "Folk Mataraman Institute" is the name of their band. I'm very tolerant of spammy user pages unless they are the exact same as the group, organization, or company. I use {{Db-spamuser}} if the user name is the name promoted. For pages such as Priyeshrao007 I use {{Db-spam}}. Both templates are in Twinkle. In this case, I first did a Google translate. Saw that they were promoting a band, but that it was only a partial cut-and-paste job. I searched the web, and discovered that "Folk Mataraman Institute" was the name of a band pasting similar promotional stuff on every website that they could (some sites had already deleted their spam). I'll add one other thing, they are being deceptive; they are pasting their spam across the Internet in either Malay or English depending on what they can get away with. Cheers. (P.S. I lived in Bloomington for 4 year a number of years ago, and thought it was one of the most wonderful places to live!) --I am One of Many (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, userpages about groups tend to fall into three categories: actual encyclopedia articles or attempts thereunto, spam, and little bits just talking about the group in question. Of course I know that there's a grey area on the boundary between the second and third, but when the page says nothing about the group's specific activities, nothing about contacting them, and nothing about how great they are, and when it basically just tells their story, I'm going to consider it comparable to someone writing about himself: "this is who I am, and a little bit about what I've done". This can even be the case for a username sharing its name with the group; it's analogous to User:Joe Bloggs saying "I'm Joe Bloggs; I'm from __ and have done __" for a few paragraphs. It's basically the last couple chunks from the table in WP:UPYES, and this page is definitely short enough that it qualifies as "small and proportionate". Your comments about their activity on other websites I understand and agree with, but that's simply not blatant enough for "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". And finally, I'm glad you liked Bloomington; I arrived in 2010 for grad school, and I've been wanting to get out pretty much since I arrived. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I do agree, and I think think that this is your underlying principle, we should error on the side of being human. I'm sorry to hear about your experiences of Bloomington. I had just moved there from Chicago and it was a pleasant experience. I hope things go well and you can leave soon. I am One of Many (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Merrick Co. courthouse delisting

Re. the Merrick County courthouse: I don't know—I just found out about the delisting this evening, and the Federal Register source that I cited is the only thing I've found that sheds any light on it. It might be necessary to contact the Nebraska State Historical Society and ask (and, unfortunately, we can't cite "personal communication" in an article). My best guess is that the north-side addition makes too radical a change from the original appearance of the building; but that's only a guess. Ammodramus (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all I saw is the Federal Register delisting you cited. I then tried to find out why and about all I found out is that in most cases it is because the site no longer exists. It probably would be a good idea to track down the reason just in case the delisted the wrong site in Merrick County. Thanks and cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that a site doesn't have to be altogether demolished to be delisted; it's enough for it to lose "historical integrity" (if I'm remembering the phrase correctly). A lot of NRHP nominations talk about the recent alterations that've been made and stress that they're minor and don't affect the overall appearance; in a lot of historic districts, buildings are mentioned as non-contributing properties because their appearance has been altered, even if the building itself is old. With the Central City courthouse, the original building is still there, but (as I recall) the one-story addition on the front (north) side is pretty conspicuous, and doesn't really attempt to blend in with the rest of the architecture. Ammodramus (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I just used Google maps to take a look, and by the way, I can't believe how it has improved–-the street view is unreal! It looks like the addition is on the east side, but three sides are nicely intact. It would be interesting to find out if they made a mistake, because the building with the Martha Ellen Auditorium closed in 2013 with nothing left of the original structure inside. I'll let you know if I find anything out. I am One of Many (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
2009: view from northwest
Take a look at the description and the photos in the NRHP nominating form. In the description (section 7, p. 1), it describes the building as rectangular, and speaks of "the four colossal stone columns ranged along the principal (north) facade and the massive stone steps leading up to them and the main entrance". From the Google satellite photo, the building is no longer rectangular: there's a large gable-roofed projection to the north. Compare the 2009 photo taken from the northwest with the first of the three photos at the end of the nom form, which isn't labelled but which appears to be from the north. The older photo doesn't show a projection to the north, and the wide flight of steps in that photo are missing from the more recent one. Ammodramus (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I was a little dense last night, but that addition is a disaster. I travel quite often to Central City to visit my father, but I never noticed this change. No wonder they delisted it, it should have been. I did send an email off to the office of planning and zoning for Merrick County to see if I could get an official reason, but there is little doubt that it was due to the horrible modification. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree: it's pretty nasty. It doesn't look so awful in the head-on street view photo.
You might know better than I, but I suspect that the planning-and-zoning office might not be the place to ask about an NRHP delisting. I'd be inclined, myself, to try either the local historical society or the Nebraska State Historical Society. There's somebody at the NSHS who's specifically in charge of NRHP; e-mailing them might be the way to go. Of course, the real trick is going to be finding a published source that explains why it was delisted. Unfortunately, the NSHS doesn't do that with their website when properties are delisted: they just quietly remove them. Ammodramus (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Read about ten lines down from the top of that column, right above the boldfaced "Indiana": "A request for removal has been made for the following resources". That's consistent with the other Nebraska sites in that list: the Brownson Viaduct and the Olive Branch Bridge were no longer there when I went to photograph them, and the Ehlers Round Barn collapsed under a heavy snowfall in February 2012 (note, with citation, at article). Ammodramus (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see that before. That explains why it is still listed, but likely removed later. There is a longer version of this PDF, which produced the confusion because the paragraph on the page before explains at length that a list of places with requests to be added follows. Should we put proposed for removal until it is officially removed? I am One of Many (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure when a listing or delisting becomes official. The people who maintain Wikipedia's NRHP-by-county-and-state lists have already added the latest batch of new sites and removed the deleted ones, including the Merrick Co. courthouse. I'm not sure if the NRHP Focus site is kept up to date; it appears to be broken this morning, so I can't test it by querying for somewhat recent additions. If you think the delisting might not be complete yet, you might raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places; there are probably editors who know a lot more about the process than I do. Ammodramus (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ameer Abdullah

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Gosh. My very first barn star. Thank you! An idiot question: Is there a standard, good-form response when that happens? Is it customary to recognize the giver? Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there is. I just say thanks like you did! Great job! --I am One of Many (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Arin Hanson

I can assure you, the additions to the page I edited were correct. As I clicked save on the page, I realized I forgot to cite my sources, and quickly went to add them in. 50.140.160.145 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person. The material appears controversial, so you must accompany it with at least one good reliable source.I am One of Many (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do honestly believe that a major life event such as the one I tried to add should be included to said person's biography. To think that Arin was subject to abuse because of a falsely accused sexual orientation, and because of it made a club of which supported his and many others sexual orientation. This seems to be a very important life event of his, because he told his wife, Suzy, and his co-host, Danny Avidan, along with announcing it on his web-series, Game Grumps. I will like the source I planned to use for my addition here: Ninjabread Man - Game Grumps Please view the video from the time that was linked to the end to show proof of all my statements. The statements I made were also added to the official Game Grumps wiki, which is also taken very seriously. All I did was edit the statement to seem a bit more professional, because although we take many things seriously, usually fans of the series go there and vandalize pages, very often so that the moderators there seem to have given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.160.145 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is not considered a reliable source. Also, the interview does not come across as very serious and unclear as to interoperation, which means that to include your interpretation would be original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. My advice is to let it go, unless you have say an article from the New York times, which states what you said. I am One of Many (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Brockman

I don't know how to communicate in this forum, and am a new user. I hope this first effort is okay. I thank you for your experience and attention to the edits we are making. We are a widespread genealogy group from around the world--albeit one small in number. There is no intention so make the article a personal sandbox. Please share your insight and experience whenever you have a moment to do so again. Thank you. --Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpdatorBen (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is always good to have new users and I want to welcome you. I can't tell yet if the article you are working on would be acceptable when you are done, but right now it doesn't meet the minimals standards for a Wikipedia article. How about you copy the article into your sandbox and I can give you some guidance over time on how to make create a substantial update that would be acceptable? I am One of Many (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I will do so. I just put the link out to a few global groups, and expect to have a few edits trickle in--in the wiki spirit so to speak. It is 01:00 local. I will jump back into this first thing in the morning, and will post to the sandbox. Thanks again. Don't mean to detract from the accuracy of the wiki world. Regards UpdatorBen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.225.135 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be good in the meantime (if you haven't already) to return it to the version before you started editing. Then, when you have an solid revision of the article, you can update it. I would be happy to give you advice. I am One of Many (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Update, I see that Nyttend has move the article into your user space, which will give you all the time you need to create a notable article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just a quick cookie for beating me to reverting vandalism. :) Bananasoldier (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm honored and appreciate the cookie! --I am One of Many (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable faculty... not notable

Saybrook_University#Noted_faculty
A person is not notable if they do not have a wikipedia article. 208.105.78.10 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not correct. There are plenty of notable people that do not have Wikipedia articles yet. I think instead, you should open up a discussion on the talk page and see if other people agree or disagree with you about who is notable for that article and who is not. I am One of Many (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

IP message moved

I don't really know how this works but look I'm not going to waste my time, the point was simply to remove the Israeli propaganda from a page that has NOTHING to do with it. And I will edit the page again. If you want it some other way YOU fix it, I just better not see that Israeli horseshit on there again.

First, your first edit was a copy and paste from another website, which is a copyright violation. If you have problems with the article, take it to the talk page, but you can't just delete content because if doesn't fit you point of view. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is going to ban you, but it helps to be civil in discussions (otherwise people tend to ignore you or worse) and explain what the issue is on the talk page. You just deleted a chunk without attempting to fix the article other than copy and paste from another website. I do agree that it was not an appropriate example, but I'll assume good faith that the person who put it there may not have fully understood what a semantic dispute is. I suggest that you take it is, be nice to other people, it often goes a long ways. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The other example is still blatant American conservative propaganda. Only a conservative could try and argue the words we use to refer to people don't actually mean exactly what we say they mean. Republicans and Democrats are not even in the least bit a semantic problem. Republicans are genocidal warmongerers for one thing. Let's start there with the material basis. There is no possible semantic dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.150.34.186 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You have illustrated very well why semantic disputes are ubiquitous in politics. I am One of Many (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom High School (Pennsylvania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swimming (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) 09:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I got a warning

I got a warning
Not sure if this is right place to send a message. You sent me a message about changing Redlands High school page. I was trying to fix it (not knowing what I am doing). Seems that bondage site is embeded in the wiki page (if you go look up FB page for RHS you will see what i'm saying). I was trying to undo what someone else did.. but poorly. Thanks for trying to help my undoing what I was trying to undo.. ugh. 4peanut4 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi 4peanut4, I noticed all the changes that the IP (I assume you were making). It appeared to be vandalism, so that is why I gave a very stern warning. If you are a new user and you didn't know what you were doing, then please ignore the warning and don't hesitate to ask me for help. When you see a problem like that in the future, look at the history and restore the most recent good version of the article. Good luck. I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Don't you absolutely HATE those PESKY vandals? Such a pain in the ass. What's so fun about vandalizing a wiki when it's just going to be reverted sooner or later? Yet even as I scratch my head some people (even adults that should "know better") find pleasure in replacing entire articles with "poopyface" or "I wuz here" or "OMFG I'M ACTUALLY EDITING A WIKIPEDIA PAGE" or "Hey Duncan. See, I edited this page." or the one that really irritates me, "Stop using this damn website where I can go and change the content of the pages. You're so stupid for coming here." And yes, a teacher wrote that once. To prove these nimrods wrong, we fight them with even less effort than it takes to screw the wiki over. And if they still don't listen - we can bash them with this barnstar. Or you could, you know, block them, like usual. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Vandalism is a huge almost overwhelming problem here. I am One of Many (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm following the same vandal as you! You're doing a hell of a job and I wanted to thank you!Baltergeist (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
He/she will likely keep it up till they run out of IP addresses or they tire of it. I am One of Many (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage

Let me know if you'd like it semi-protected. m.o.p 06:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your request on RFPP. YesY Done for one month. m.o.p 07:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much!!! I am One of Many (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nelson Thomas Potter Jr., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln and Mount Morris (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) 09:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yuma (Arizona)

I have modified the article about climate of Yuma because there are some things which aren't true like the average high temperature. I have some sources and I will post them. 88.165.192.45 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In the edit summary could you say what you said here in the future? There are a lot of vandals who like to make changes to numbers and edit summaries allow us to identify good editors like you from vandals. Thanks! --I am One of Many (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I recently read an article you wrote, Africa Check. I wanted to say that I appreciate you creating (and DYKing) such a topic. Have you considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Systemic Bias? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! --I am One of Many (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Chase (UK game show)

Please be careful when reverting edits and re-adding WP:OR content to this page.[1] The content you re-added was earlier deleted based upon the following discussions:

AldezD (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

When I see a new editor or IP perform a mass deletion without adequate explanation, I revert. I reverted the IP who then reverted and cited some of the links above and claiming a consensus. I see a consensus at AfD not to have a standalone list article, but I don't see a consensus on the talk page not to include the list if anything it leans towards including the list. However, I'm not interested in getting involved in this dispute, my interest there was in preventing vandalism. In the future, I'll continue to revert unexplained or inadequately explained deletions of content. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe)‎

What do you think of the other IP's edit/reversion just before the one you reverted at {{la|Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe)}? I keep removing it but it gets reinstated. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be there so I reverted to your last version. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support and thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. What doesn't kill me... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits were intentional

The edits that I made on the Resveratrol page were intentional. I was unsure how to use the edit summary page but now I know. Thank you for pointing that out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the content you removed was well-sourced, so you need to provide an argument with reliable sources regarding whether the content is non-neutral, in error in some way etc. Then see if there is a consensus to make these changes. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help

My account has been unblocked. Thank You! I do want to provide meaningful edits in the future. Local4554 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Three things I have learned over time about successfully editing on and contributing to Wikipedia: (1) Patience: It often takes time to do things on Wikipedia. If you want to make a potentially controversial change to an article, prepare for its possible reversion. If so, discuss it on the talk page. This may take time from hours to weeks. So, it is good to have a number of different things to do on Wikipedia that may interest you. (2) Go slow: I have made the mistake of going to fast many times. There is no reason to go fast. It is better to figure out how its done here and then move forward gradually. For example, it is a good idea to figure out how articles should be formatted and copy edited. Find and article that needs work and fix it up is a good way of learning. (3) Assume good faith and don't make assumptions about others: For example, you assumed I was a teenager and that assumption was off by decades. Good luck. I am One of Many (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Egyptian Revolution of 2013 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Revolution of 2013 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GreyShark (dibra) 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Termite-inspired robots

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cornealious Michael Anderson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • On August 15, 1999 in [[St. Charles, MissouriSt. Charles|], [[Missouri]], Anderson and a companion robbed a [[Burger King]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cornealious Michael Anderson

The DYK project (nominate) 17:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comments about me at WP:AN/ANI

Well Iamoneofmany, I think you voted in my favor there a couple times so thank you. I remember when I first interacted with you you were in my favor and I never understood why you turned on me after that. I've said the same things all along. Now, "If he had been more cooperative and trusting (assuming he had nothing to hide), it would have never come to this?" Did you read the part where I said I had privacy concerns about my previous account? It does not mean I have "something to hide" really, it means I don't want Wikipedia's creepazoids as found in "sockpuppet investigations" group and WP:AN/ANI crawling all over my real life information with Google and whatever else they have. I keep reading people say I'm "not to be trusted" but I have always told the truth and acted openly with my convictions. Truly, it is others like Mastcell and Wormthatturned and, jeez this new rabid critic Dheyward, that manipulate the facts and language to convey prosecutorial arguments against me rather than genuine and straightforward viewpoints. Frankly some of these guys seem to me to be motivated by hatred. The reason I would like to be unblocked to edit freely again is not to chase after them and pursue grudges, but rather just to edit the things that interest me like I used to, and now there is also policy that I want to improve, since my experiences the last 20 months have shown me where it is seriously broken. Anyhow, I hope you are back on my side, but whatever you call it, thanks for the votes. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.115.249 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Colton, I think that a lot of people thought your original block was problematic. I believe that you have privacy concerns. I also believe that you have a good understanding about how the Wikipedia community works. You know as well as I do that you are never going to get anywhere with the community here by referring to them as "creepazoids" or "rabid." Partly because of this, most people focus on how you have behaved since your block, you can't win anyone over like that. For example, people will read what you wrote above and it will do the opposite of what you hope to obtain; it will just further convince them that you don't belong here. I like many others here have privacy concerns. If I were in your shoes, I would think long and hard about who to reveal my identity to, but I have identified a number of people that I'm convinced are highly trustworthy and WTT is one of them. I don't see any hatred for you. You are anonymous. No one know who you are. I think what you are seeing are reactions to the words you use your unconventional way going about this.
As I see it, there is no possibility at all that the current process you are following will lead to your account being unblocked. If you really want to use the Colton Cosmic account in the future, tell someone you think you can trust such as WTT who you were in the past and then go for the standard offer in six months. The other strategy is the silent return, which will only work if you behave like a "perfect" Wikipedian. I think you should face reality: your current approach is never going to work. At this point, the correctness of your original block no longer matters in the eyes of many members of the community, its mostly what has happened since then. I am One of Many (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Colton Cosmic, my view is that you want Wikipedia to change into something it is not. I think you have been around long enough to get a sense of the culture that has evolved over time here. Sure your original block was questionable, but it was made by a checkuser, and so there is a wall hiding what he did or did not know via his tools that we cannot break through. It is important to keep in mind that most users are anonymous and it is a core principle not to out people. That also comes with the cost that fairness is not as important because we don't know the person is behind the account. I have read all of your early edits and when you combine them with anonymity, it is not so surprising that it has come to this. For example, one of the things you did early on is start talking about sockpuppetry on the Wikipedia article page on sockpuppetry. You made it known that your account was a cleanstart account and anonymous, why draw attention to yourself by talking about sockpuppetry policy? Because you are anonymous, people can began to form opinions--right or wrong--about your intentions. And then, why get so defensive when an administrator asked you if your previous account was blocked or banned? You are anonymous, you don't want to draw suspicion on yourself that you have violated policy. In real life in the US, you have rights that you don't have here simply because you are anonymous here. In real life, you might be a real nice person or you might be a troll. Nobody knows because you are anonymous and you want to keep it that way (and as you say for good reasons). So, if you want to contribute to Wikipedia, there really only are two options and they have been laid out for you by WTT. There just never ever will be consensus to unblock your account with your current approach. I am One of Many (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rocket Records

Here we go again? Ugh. Thanks for fixing the redirect nonsense. --Kinu t/c 07:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to leave you a message on your talk page about Tim Coons and Rocket Records, but I see you must of had them watch listed too! I figured they would eventually come back, but it is obvious sock puppetry, so it won't be so time consuming this time! :) --I am One of Many (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, that editor just tried to recreate the Rocket Records nonsense at Rocket Records (record label). Quack quack. Blocked. --Kinu t/c 19:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. The editor likely will be back again, perhaps six months from now. I do appreciate your due process approach of providing ample warning and the opportunity for the editor to reform. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. The editor just wrote a trolling personal attack-laden screed on their talk page, so I've revoked their access. WP:ROPE and all that. --Kinu t/c 21:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Legion (software)

Hello. What is IP then, if not Intellectual Property? It is far from obvious. KaosMuppet (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I think I misread IP as Internet protocol, which doesn't make sense, so I reverted my revert. Thanks for pointing that out! I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Swahili language

Thanks for your vigilance. What the h*ll is going on there, do you think? As you say, it is getting very boring. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but you do see this type of strange behaviour (repeatedly trying to add a piece of vandalism) to an article. If it keeps up, semiprotection for a while, should do the trick. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marriage and health

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marriage and health you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have notified the top contributors to marriage and health since the original nominator is no longer active. Feel free to participate in the process or just ignore/delete this message. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for I, Too, Am Harvard

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Great apes intelligence

Please let me know if this template is not renamed, and reformatted in a timely manner. You can renominate it for deletion if you are not satisfied with the changes (or lack there of). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and renamed it Template:Great ape language and then I edited the content to relevant to teaching great apes language. I placed the template in all the articles that are in the template. It is not a particularly important template, but for those interested in this narrow topic they can easily navigate to the relevant articles. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Upper Oak Creek Descent Ruts of the Woodbury Cutoff, Ox Bow Trail of the California Road

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Why did you nominate my article regarding Anti-Nazi Propaganda for deletion?

- Jonas Vinther

It was for the reasons stated in the nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi Propaganda

I reverted your edit on the page. You said "Original research. No statement is made in either source about propaganda.". I think you badly misunderstood what I meant. The two sources are not linked or connected, they are simply meant to set as an example. [29 March 2014]

Thank you for your RfA support

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are a fine editor and you will sometime in the future be a good administrator. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hanna Jaff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (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) 08:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pat Boone

You said I didn't give a reliable source. I did! Oldies Music News *is* a reliable source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.33.158 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Although sourced, it is speculative, controversial, and WP:UNDUE. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How so? I also cited Fox News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.33.158 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is the thing. The is an encyclopaedia and the information you added is controversial. The Fox New article is very short and uses the word appears and it is vague, so we do not want to place undue weight on controversial issues that are possible speculative and uncertain. Also, it is not relevant to his notability, which is the reason Pat Boone has an article in Wikipedia. If it becomes a more important issue so that it is clearly notable and firm, then it might be appropriate to include. I hope that helps. I am One of Many (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how relaying a public report, apparently available in many media, regarding someone, who even agrees that there is something there, is controversial, especially since Fox News reported on both sides of the story. This encyclopedia is full of many such reports. On 25 June 2009 would you have removed material on possible causes of Michael Jackson's death on the grounds of being controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.33.158 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's death is notable. I suggest creating a section of the Pat Boone talk page and arguing for why you think this material should be included. If there is a consensus that it should be included, then it will. However, it seems to minor, vague, and controversial (without being notable) to be included at this time. I am One of Many (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., Thanks for letting me know. As I stated as instructed I do believe their is good fair-use justification. This image was taken in 1992 when Deadwood Draw was nominated for the NRHP. One of the notable features were the wagon ruts, which are clearly visible on the 1992 image, however, they are not as clear if present on newer free images. This may be due to erosion or other human factors, but it is not uncommon with NRHP sites that they degrade over time. Or it may be that arial views show the ruts whereas as non-arial (free pictures) do not. So, there is good reason to conclude that there are no free images available and that this is the only existing image. I would also add that I looked at the location using Google maps satellite view and it is my view that newer images cannot represent Deadwood Draw as it was in 1992. Again, also keep in mind that the 1992 photo was an arial view and that there are no known free arial view images available.

DYK nomination of Angie Epifano

Hello! Your submission of Angie Epifano at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Good to go now! Edwardx (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I am One of Many (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Deadwood Draw

The DYK project (nominate) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dead Draw Aerial View looking South, August 1992.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Angie Epifano

Allen3 talk 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry I don't know the rules around here

Sorry I don't know the rules around here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.2.189 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can start by reading WP:CIVIL I am One of Many (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipedian

Hi, I'm the Eugenol editor who didn't notice she wasn't logged in. I'll go back and look at those edits, but I think they were defensible. I often edit for English grammar, smooth English reading and encyclopedic style, and those edits may often seem unnecessary to someone who isn't tuned in to those specialties. I've done enough editing of scientific and technical material to do those things without obscuring technical distinctions. But, in any case, if I goofed something up, let's discuss. Thanks, Here.it.comes.again (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Here.it.comes.again since you made the edits in question as an IP, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I sometimes revert edits without edit summaries, sources, and that look questionable. Of course, I make mistakes, so if I reverted one or more good edits of yours, I am sorry. I don't recall reverting any changes recently in scientific or technical articles? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Followup: I used the interaction analyser to find what articles we have overlap edits and there is only one from bat in which an IP made an unexplained change, which did not appear plausible. Are you sure you are talking to the correct user? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cassey Ho

If you examine the sources carefully, you'll see that none of them assert that the editing created a thigh gap. – Smyth\talk 07:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The image of the model was altered to create an apparent thigh gap. That is what happened and that is what Target apologized for. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate where the sources say that the image was altered to CREATE a thigh gap. – Smyth\talk 09:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"I was browsing the Target website for a new bikini when I saw one with a cute print and decided to zoom in. It was at that point that I saw the jagged lines and missing crotch in the model! It was shocking. Upsetting. I could not believe that a huge company like Target which generally has a good reputation among the young generation would do something like that!" [2] Cassey Ho is stating that the photo had "jagged lines and missing crotch". How did this happen? "Little did I know that the next morning I would wake up to see the photoshopped Target model controversy all over the news!" [3] So, Target altered the photo. To photoshop a photo means to alter it and they altered it by creating white space in the photo between inner thighs. The word create means to "to make or produce (something); to cause (something new) to exist; to cause (a particular situation) to exist; to produce (something new, such as a work of art) by using your talents and imagination"[4]. All that said, I have no problem changing the wording in the article as long as the essence of what happened is stated correctly.
Would you be satisfied if the phrase "In 2014, she discovered a photo of a model on Target Corporation's website that had been photoshopped to create a thigh gap" was changed to "In 2014, she discovered a photo of a model on Target Corporation's website that had a photoshopped thigh gap in it"? I am One of Many (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As your definition shows, "create" implies that there was no gap before, which does not appear to be true. Referring to a "photoshopped gap" is more ambiguous, but could also be read as implying creation from nothing. So how about "she discovered a photo on Target Corporation's website that had been crudely photoshopped [I think the extremely poor quality of the image editing is worth mentioning] to enlarge the model's thigh gap"? – Smyth\talk 18:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know how much the thigh gap was increased in the model, but an arbitrary photoshopping of an image does not make national or international news nor does a corporation apologize for an employees botched photoshopping of an image. The gap between the thighs was clearly photo shopped and that is why all of the articles on that incident include the words "thigh gap". Other aspects of the model were photoshopped and botched, but they were only pointed out to help establish that the thigh gap had been photoshopped. I would be happy to use the term "photoshopped" strictly in place of "created," but anything less would not accurately represent what is in the sources. I am One of Many (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I changed the wording in both Cassey Ho and Thigh gap to read that the thigh gap had been photoshopped. This leaves what happened anything from creating a thigh gap in its entirety to altering it in some way. That the thigh gap was altered by photoshopping is all that is asserted. Do you agree with that wording now? --I am One of Many (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. – Smyth\talk 20:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, it feels good to work these things out and I agree it is more accurate now. I am One of Many (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William T. Carneal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 27th Infantry Division (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) 08:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cassey Ho

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The 1949 Sun Bowl Controversy, David Showell

Your DYK nomination of these articles has been reviewed, and there are a few issues that need addressing, mostly to do with the sourcing. Please stop by when you can to address these issues. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_am_One_of_Many/Archive_4&oldid=1144522946"