User talk:I am One of Many/Archive 7

Impalement
Impalement‎, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--I am One of Many (talk ) 19:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing from your pattern of edits, you neglected to inform User:94.72.205.97. I will do that for you.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN
Dispute_resolution_noticeboard96.52.0.249 (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination)
Page is linked in the topic title above--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Stale draft
Do you know that User talk:Screenpeople is editing your stale draft User:I am One of Many/Madison McKinley Garton. That's a new account, but clearly aren't a new editor. What's going on? Widefox ; talk 10:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I thought the person might become notable after an AfD, so I asked that it be moved to my user account. Since, it is drawing the kind of attention that we don't want on Wikipedia, I'm going to request its speedy deletion. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. This is going to be the last round of notifications I do before I close the Impalement case in about 24 hours as stale on the recommendation of the other DRN volunteers. I already posted a couple of recommendations in terms of community resources and processes to use to resolve the core dispute last week, and the ball's now in the two of you's court to either actively continue the DRN case (as in, posting statements more than once every few days) or seek another way to resolve the issue such as WP:RFC or WP:3O. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 16:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

impalement versus impalement injuries
I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion is developing there: After reading the responses, the medical view of impalement is that it is a penetrating injury and the specific treatment methods depend on the individual case.  Of course the discussion is developing, but I see the reason impalement injuries was never created: there is to much treatment overlap with penetrating trauma.96.52.0.249 (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

hi
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How far do we go?
Why do you think this is better than my edit? Your version contravenes WP:CAT and the spirit of WP:OVERLINKING. 118.93.90.74 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was removing all of the categories. If you look at the topics covered at these conferences, all categories you removed are covered.  Otherwise, I didn't have a problem. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  reducing promotional content

Thank you for quality articles such as Deadwood Draw, How Global Warming Works and Jack Hoffman, for monitoring new additions, fighting vandalism and reducing promotional content, for, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 886th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was very honored and deeply appreciated it! --I am One of Many (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem
No worries about the he/she confusion. Figured I'd put this here instead the incidents page, thanks so much again for the continued support. Packerfansam (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I can help you in the future! --I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Impalement/GA3
I am going to tag Talk:Impalement/GA3 for speedy deletion per unless you have an objection.96.52.0.249 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Packerfansam redux (or perhaps "still")
Just this morning she removed mention of historic synagogues in Omaha - the only indication in the article that there are any. I really don't think she understands the problem, or, if she does, is able to do anything about it. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * She also removed the Democratic party affiliation of a legislator, when a few minutes research in easily available, reliable sources would have clarified the matter. As JohninDC said, "I really don't think she understands the problem, or, if she does, is able to do anything about it."  32.218.36.31 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and, as evidenced by the fact that, in responding to your note on her Talk page, she characterizes the problem as "this one user" whom she just can't seem to please. It is as though she did not even read the ANI thread in which she came within a hair's breadth of being blocked for POV editing wrapped up in deceptively vague and benign-sounding edit summaries (or the Talk page messages from three other editors, which she blanked).  I would appreciate it if you would help her understand that her persistent pattern of edits transgresses Wikipedia's NPOV standards and that this imbroglio can't be laid at the feet of one or two hypersensitive, vocal participants.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a matter of understanding where consensus lies on these religious and political editing issues. I'm confident that we will achieve clarification.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After this last round, I just disagree. Previously she removed most of the references to Jews from New York City - and to Muslims in Michigan (home of the largest mosque in North America).  There is no conceivable claim that those references are somehow insignificant or minor in those places.  And it's not just religion.  She removed an entire section on LGBT issues from the Republican Party article, and took out Pia Sundhage's sexual orientation, and deleted perfectly good links from dab pages to articles that she didn't like (one for being a Mormon and the other a socialist).  She doesn't make the same kinds of miscalculations about anything but religion, race, sexual orientation and political affiliation - you don't see her correcting population figures, or taking out information about, I don't know, 2012 sales figures in articles about one or another company.  I don't know what more clarification there is to be made - she just shouldn't make those kinds of edits, period.  They're always wrong - always.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks BTW for sticking up for me there. I forgot to say that.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to figure out what is going on. The removals are decreasing in number.  I'm still confident we can get this worked out with discussion. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the nub of it of course. But I am skeptical that there is any more progress to be made here.  Several of her most problematic edits are listed at ANI, right at the top.  More are listed further down in in the body.  Several editors left messages on her Talk page imploring her to explain herself, to say what she intended with these edits that (in some editors' words) looked like vandalism, and all she has said so far is that sometimes she thinks talking about minority religions makes articles too long.  That is, first, wholly incomplete (pardon the oxymoron); and second, at odds with the facts of most of her edits, where she is removing an important local religious component - or things that aren't religious at all.  She is not even owning up to her own edits, despite ample opportunity to engage on the subject.  But - I'm not an admin and won't be blocking her, so I guess we'll see!  JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While Packerfansam's comments display a lack of understanding of what the issues are, her edits show an impulsivity and lack of judgment (e.g., the religious removals described above by JohninDC). She's also been cranking out slapdash stub articles that could easily be expanded with only a little research. I'm not sure how valuable that quantity over quality modus operandi is. How about requiring that she be mentored? That way there would be some regular oversight of her work. 32.218.36.31 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you both may be correct if from now on, she sees the issues (and I realize that there is no guarantee), then we have solved the problem and retained an editor that otherwise is a good contributor. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain to her as well that mention of a nude painting is not "POV". Joe has already mentioned this to her but perhaps it will be more effective coming from you. While you are at it you might cover the entire area of sexuality given her LBGT edits, as well as removing Playboy - repeatedly - from University of Wisconsin–Madison. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Political Graveyard
Your opinions fly in the face of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See and, for example. (There have been other similar discussions.) It's a self-published, user-generated source, which falls under WP:USERG. Suggest you read WP:RS in its entirety. By those standards, The Political Graveyard is an iffy source, and if a better one can be found, it should be used. 32.218.38.92 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read both, but those are only two editors and only opinions and they appear to be a bit misinformed. A genuine discussion is needed. However, it is not a source I use, so I'm not hugely interested in establishing it as a reliable source. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be ironic?
Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to point out to you that you have a POV, which simply means you edit with you own views, which are not based in science or sources. From what I can see, you have no knowledge or understanding of biology and genetics. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. I was enthralled by your contributions to the discussion, which basically consisted of "race is skin color" and "that's racist". Way to show off your "knowledge or understanding of biology and genetics", you utter hypocrite. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. You are likely to find a block in your future if you don't move on to an area where you have competency. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that this lame ad hominem is based in dishonesty, and that you don't really believe that you are displaying competency with this material. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm being quite honest. I am very concerned about your competency in these and related areas. If you read the article on competence I linked, there are concerns about your editing regarding: Factual, Social, Bias-based, Lack of technical expertise, and Grudges. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're coming from a self-admitted "anti-racist" POV in which you think "racists" define race by "skin color" on an article about the race concept and you are complaining about my competence? Jog on sunshine. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I freely admit that I have an anti-racist POV. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you define racist? Is thinking race is a valid concept racist? Is the possibility of behavior genetic variation between races racist? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even know any living evolutionary biologists who use the term "race" as a biological concept anymore. Population structure is what matters from an evolutionary point of view. The concept of race is socially constructed and what different cultures identify as different races simply doesn't map nicely into human population structure.  Talking about race as a social construct is not racist.  Asking whether the social constructs of race map onto human population structure is not racist either.  Potential concerns do arise when there is a push to say that the social constructs of race have a solid biological basis. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. (I know, I know, so few articles created? I've really been slacking.)  I pledge to discharge my duties to the best of my abilities, and hope to be worthy of the trust you have placed in me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Science - Metaphysics - Intelligent Design
User:I am One of Many, pursuant to our discussion on the Talk-page of Intelligent design, allow me to address the issues that you raised there. First, Intelligent design (ID) theory is not a specious argument, but rather a theory with merits of its own. Proponents of this theory do not necessarily push the theological aspects behind the theory, just as we can see by the way this article,, presents Einstein's view of "randomness" in our universe, and where its author, Vasant Natarajan, cleverly explains Einstein's position on ID without having to admit that Einstein was bent on theism. He says, rather, that Einstein believed in mathematical laws of nature, which he equated as being something that was put there in nature by the "unknown," call-it by whatever name that might be. But, again, that is not my point here, when I come to suggest changes for this WP article. I only wish to see a more neutral point-of-view represented here, and one that treats the theory with due respect, just as in all the online articles one finds on the Internet, as well as on Wikipedia's foreign languages: French, German, Italian, Hebrew, etc. I have made proposals with the view that we can reach some compromise here. As for what you said about "Science is not metaphysics," that is incorrect. Much of Quantum mechanics theory has to do with the metaphysical, and, yet, it is treated as a science. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is you apparently have no idea what science is. The ID has nothing to do with science. It is not testable.  There is no empirical experiment that you could conceive of that would lead you to reject ID and become an atheist.  The interpretation you provide of Einstein's are simply wrong. Do you see any distinction between testable theories such quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, and non-testable theories such as ID?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not all theories should be judged as being able to be "falsifiable" is, in itself, a philosophical view-point, espoused by Karl Popper in his empirical falsification theory. It is not my place to make judgments on his theory here, and, for certain, his words may be subjected to scrutiny just as any other theory. Still, ID theory is not made subject to, nor is it dependent upon Popper's theory of "falsification." Besides, any theory that has moved from "theory" to "proven-fact" can no longer be falsified. Or, for a better way of putting it, the ID theory, whose plausibility is made all the more convincing by the flaws and inconsistencies in the only other alternative (viz. Darwin's theory of random evolution), is worthy of our commendation. Darwin himself said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (see: The Origin of Species, Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979 [November, 1859], p. 219). Science has so-far never found an unbroken chain of fossil evidence of the same evolving species. It is only a theory with no evidence.


 * So, getting back to basics, WP:NPOV states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." The ID article is in dire need of neutrality - whether by writers who subscribe to Popper's empirical falsification theory or not. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are acting in good faith and I hope you realize that I am also acting in good faith (as well as the other editors who have commented your assertions). You should take a step back and reflect whether you really have an understanding of what science is.  Scientific theories are never proven by evidence.  The strongest claim we can assert about a scientific theory is that it is the best theory we have now for predicting/explaining phenomena within a given domain.  Since all scientific theories are testable and potentially falsifiable, they all can be refuted or replaced.  This includes quantum mechanics.  ID is not a scientific theory in this sense, it is rather a metaphysical/religious theory. The ID article on Wikipedia is about ID as a claim scientific theory.  From this point of view, it is pseudoscience. Now, all the sources you have provided are not scientifically reputable.  They are not published in leading scientific journals and they have not been reviewed by reputable scientists.  Finally, let me ask you a question.  Under what conditions would you admit that you are wrong? Keep in mind that some of the editors that you have been discussing these issues with are domain experts in some of these areas of dispute. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many, you say: "Scientific theories are never proven by evidence." That is also untrue. Some theories, such as Einstein's theory about the deflection of light (which he arrived at while working on his theory of general relativity) was later proven correct by science, through the development of larger telescopes. As for what you say about ID not being a scientific theory, but only a metaphysical/religious theory," if a metaphysical theory is its true name there can be nothing wrong with that, so long as scientific methods and principles are being used to determine whether or not it proves an intelligent designer. Religion, however, is not necessarily an issue here, as some ID proponents see themselves as being Theistic evolutionists, who see little or no evidence of God in nature, but hold only to the idea that some force had willfully set our spheres and planet in motion, although life evolved from a primordial cell. WP does not only require sources that have been published in "scientific journals," but makes do also with books published by Professors of major universities, such as Dr. Elliott Sober who cites the views of ID, and Dr. Michael Behe, among others. My wife's uncle is a nuclear physicist here, in Israel, who served also as Israel's Minister of Science & Technology, and he holds to the ID theory. You asked to what degree would I admit that I am wrong. I will only say here that our purpose here shouldn't be to try to convince others about who is right and who is wrong, but rather, show the divergent views, and let our readers decide for themselves. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the reason you persist is that you really do misunderstand what science is about. The general theory of relativity has never been proven (in the sense of established with certainty). It has been supported by all experimental observations.  But, no matter how much evidence we have, no theory is proven by the evidence.  I'm not sure if you are claiming that Elliott Sober supports ID, but if so that would rise to the level of deliberate misinformation, since there is no possibility of mistaking his position. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Elliott Sober gives more of an objective coverage of the divergent views (ID vs. evolution) than does the current article on WP. Again, I have read where science has proved one of Einstein's theories correct, namely, the theory that he advanced about how light travels, and which was unknown for sure at the time when Einstein put forth his theory --- independent, in some ways, of Einstein's theory of relativity. I can see that instead of concentrating on the issues proposed by me for improving the WP article, you're making a lot of wild guesses about me.Davidbena (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any wild guesses I may have made about you were based solely on what your have written. I have simply been trying to show you what science is and is not. From what you have said, it appears that for you believe that good scientific claims are proven (by deduction I presume) and testability is not essential for a scientific theory.  I had hoped to clear this up by pointing out the misunderstandings you have about science, I now see that that is not possible. I hope you at least consider the possibility that you are mistaken, and move on to more constructive pursuits. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope I'm not intruding, about scientific theories being (dis)proven see. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. That link does an excellent job of explaining modern scientific practice! --I am One of Many (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The journal of the National Academy of Sciences, while indeed a respected publication, is published by an organization not fully representative of all scientists, academics or laymen in our world, though one could easily be fooled by its name. To suggest that man cannot fully understand the complexities of our existence without accepting the views of Darwin's theory of "random" evolution (with all its flaws and errors), and that he must somehow cognitively avoid making any inferences from his observation of nature (albeit close to him), this is to belittle the intelligence of man. Even the laity, as well as those not connected with the laity, many academics and scientists, as well as philosophers (old and new), have published works worthy of our commendation relating to Intelligent design, which only begs the question, why is their view treated with disdain? Why aren't the views of Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher, mentioned in the article when he also wrote about Intelligent design? If an idea is true, it does not change in a thousand years. The idea can only be augmented. Are there no merits to this theory? Of course there are! Has it not been approached from a scientific and rational level? Of course it has! The current article on ID needs rewriting in its opening paragraph. Our first aim should be to define and explain the principles of ID (without bias), and only afterwards to bring-in the dissenting views, such as what may have also been published by the NAS. Let us remember that the ID theory is not only understood and adhered to by some scientists (e.g. Einstein), but by many laymen and common people as well, as if some things were self-evident. They also make-up a consensus. Nevertheless, the onus of proof does NOT rest upon their shoulders, since our aim is not to convince the public, one way or the other, who is right and who is wrong, but only to lay-forth the idea of Intelligent design, and to bring down reliable published sources that reflect that view (whether we agree with it or not), and just as the title of the article implies. I can write about Hitler's Nazi youth organization and its ideology without having to agree with that organization. It is the same principle here. Our job, as editors, is to give an open and honest description of the subject-matter, before delving into its peculiarities. The current article does exactly the opposite. It quotes four sources that allegedly call ID a "pseudoscience," but overlooks the other published sources that do not ascribe to that view. The article at the very beginning is biased, and points a negative picture at what is actually a scientific/theoretical view espoused by a vast number of people in our world.Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your POV appears to be so overwhelming that you cannot be reasoned with. Every assertion you have made about science is false, and not surprisingly, you cannot produce any reliable sources to back them up. One thing I can state with near certainty, your POV will not be added to the Wikipedia ID article. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many, WP policy clearly states that on Talk-pages one may freely talk and not adhere to the rules of WP:POV. This is an informal chat. My views for improvement of the article have already been posted elsewhere. Still, you seem to have come into this debate with pre-conceived ideas and motives. I will wait for the mediation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course informal chat can be carried out here. I thought that if explained in rough outlines the practice of science, you might see that your position is unreasonable, but as I see it, you are apparently unable modify your views as a result of any of the discussions you have had with me or other editors on this topic.  All of your efforts at mediation will fail because you hold an untenable position with regards to Wikipedia policies.  But do what you must do. Just be careful not to get yourself blocked for pushing this to the point of disruption. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to be a little more relaxed, my good friend. I will not fail, God-willing. You are new to this debate, and I suspect that you have not carefully read my arguments for ID on the ID Talk-page. That's alright. When you find the time to do that, please do. I have no harsh feelings towards you or anybody for that matter. Jews revel in debate, which you, perhaps, are not so used to seeing. But there's a limit here, as it takes-up so much of my time. What views should I modify, User:I am One of Many? To become anti-ID? To equate Intelligent design theory with Astronomy, which is real pseudoscience? No. I cannot do that. I can, however, bring down the opinions of those who hold to opposite pretensions, so that the article will be balanced. You see, our job is not to convince people, but to be impartial in our description of this one theory. If we were to all adhere closely to WP policy, as I think that I have, we can create better pages here. One of the primary rules for good editing is to abide by WP:NPOV in articles that clearly have divergent points of view. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, User:I am One of Many. It is also worthy of pointing out the fact that the ID theory is not only a scientific argument raised by some scientists (the more notable of whom being Albert Einstein), but it is also a philosophical argument mentioned by Maimonides and by Thomas Aquinas and by Sir Isaac Newton. See also this:. Davidbena (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument for design is indeed an old argument, Einstein did not use the argument from design, and ID is apparently central to your religious belief system and is many things but one thing it is not and that is scientific. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So, at least from a philosophical perspective, it ought to be represented as such by those who would disagree with its theoretical-scientific nature. Can you help me press for that on the ID page? How would this look there?

Be well. Davidbena (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest that the article you would like to turn the ID article into already exists here: Teleological argument. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Teleology can be another name for "Intelligent design," but its scope is too broad, while most people associate the name Intelligent design with the argument of design in our universe, whether from a philosophical or scientific-theoretical point of view. In this article there is a need for balance. That, and only that, is what I am striving for. The arguments are many in favor of the theory, and those - mind you - which have been stated by highly respected personages. Newton is just one of them, the father of modern physics. If his words seem to be too religious in nature, we can take it from Einstein's perspective, who was NOT a religious Jew.Davidbena (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I am One of Many, as you can see by this French Wikipedia page on Intelligent design (French: Dessein intelligent), they give both sides of the argument, presenting the subject in a more neutral tone. They write (translated from the French): "Intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory by its promoters, but in the scientific world it is considered as a pseudoscience, for reasons that both the internal facts of biology and also epistemological criteria cannot be rectified (the proponents of intelligent design appearing to biologists as having ignored numerous arguments, the more notable of which being the falsifiability criterion of Karl Popper)..." I am, therefore, quick to admit that the WP Intelligent design article should at least attempt to show that ID is viewed differently by different folks, and that even if it were not a scientific theory, per se, it is still a philosophical question suggestive of something else beyond what is seen by our naked eye, and that some biochemists (i.e. Michael Behe) and physicists (i.e. Albert Einstein) have entertained that notion as a real possibility, given all their scientific experience.Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi David, I think you have miss translated the French. The claim is that it is pseudoscience for both the internal facts of biology and also by epistemological criteria such as Popper's falsifiability criterion. Generally, biologist point out that supporters of Intelligent design misrepresent biological facts and do not follow scientific methodology/epistemology. To me, the lede of the French article reads more harshly against Intelligent Design than the English version.  I also note, that like the English version, the French article is about the modern notion of Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute.  I think like many editors here that the issues you raise really should be directed to the teleological argument/argument from design. Best. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, my French is poor. Thanks for correcting what I obviously misunderstood.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have since modified the translation, based on your superior knowledge of French.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Newton didn't know about the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems, that's why he said God did it. If Newton was present in 21st century, he wouldn't have said those words because we now know that all things in the universe were not designed but instead formed by the physical laws. Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 06:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You are involved
Given that you are involved in the debate at Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysopping_process I don't think it is appropriate that you are the one to reverse the closure. Please consider reverting yourself.

If you wish to dispute it then the talk page or WP:AN is a better venue. The closure discussion on the talk page basically resulted in the person intending to close it to decide not to. Chillum 19:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I almost reverting you myself but then I thought, "oh crap I am involved too!". While I think the closure was timely and a reasonable interpretation of an issue with only 59% support and serious concerns I respect that you may think otherwise. If you do wish to challenge this closure I will be sure to consider the arguments made with an open mind. Chillum 19:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I too think it is likely no consensus, but I felt the the close was a bit rushed given where it ended up. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)Well the first opinion was given on July 24th, today is August 24th. Requests_for_comment says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer." An alternate duration was an option but the timing of the closure was certainly within expectations.


 * Given that in the last 11 days there have been 3 new supports, 1 support changed to oppose and 5 other new opposes I suspect that more time would have resulted in only greater opposition.


 * These admin reform debates are always extensive. While I took a position contrary to yours I appreciated your input. Have a nice day. Chillum 20:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to note here, I did see that discussion, but all it seems to resolve is one person volunteering to do it alone then withdrawing, a few others volunteering to help as a panel, then the merits of that being discussed, and generally no real consensus on what action should be taken to close it. As for being rushed, participation has dwindled away, and all the new !votes in the past few days being opposes, I thought the conclusion was obvious enough to push ahead and close it. Mdann52 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Donner Party
I saw that you edited on the Donner Party and was wondering if you knew any more information about it or websites that could help me! Thank you! MissyMaeRissaShaye (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you might have noticed, this article is one of our best articles on Wikipedia. The sources in the article are excellent and if you have a Google account, you can read History of the Donner Party: A Tragedy of the Sierra Nevada for free online. Good luck! --I am One of Many (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Packerfansam
Better to continue the discussion here, I think.

The ANI, in which we both participated, was closed out in June or so with no action, based on her assurances that she understood the nature of the problems she'd occasioned, and a promise to try to stop. You'll recall that she had been removing references from articles to non-Christian religions and thought, sexual orientation, and sex generally, among other things; and while I was the one to raise this initially at ANI, it is certainly fair to say that I was not the only one to be troubled by these edits.

As the matter wrapped up, I was skeptical that she appreciated the problem (she described it along the lines of "offending one or two users") or that she'd actually quit the problematic editing, but after being characterized as "overzealous" on the point, I withdrew.

She has slowed, but certainly not quit, her POV editing. A partial list of such edits since then includes:


 * July 9
 * At Christianity, without explanation, she recast the “Criticism and apologetics” section as “Arguments and apologetics”, and removed sourced critical commentary by Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and current Jewish and Muslim theologians, as well as a (sourced) observation by an atheist that some Bible stories may be based on myth.


 * July 30
 * At Trois-Rivières, removed without explanation the identification of a (Canadian) Liberal Party politician as “liberal”, as well as a reference to another person’s being the first Jew elected to public office in the British Empire


 * August 15
 * She erased, without comment, mention of Hugh Hefner’s attendance at the Art Institute of Chicago.


 * August 18
 * She removed proper and wikilinked mention of a notable alum who is best known (and described as) an LGBT activist.


 * October 15
 * At Ted Turner, she removed a reliably-sourced quote from Turner declaring himself to be agnostic, claiming it was “contradicted” by info elsewhere in article, when the excised information was more recent than the “contradictory” text and, indeed, nicely illustrated the point (in the source itself), which is that Turner has waffled on the issue over the years.

Here too I am not the only editor to remain concerned - see this Talk page entry from September.

I agree that the "party school" edit to the University of Wisconsin is, in the larger picture, kind of a silly thing; but between her registered account and the IP she sometimes edits from, she has made the same edit at least eight times now - see May 11, May 12, May 14, May 14, May 15, June 13 and October 3 in addition to today's.  And to be clear, she's not removing the "party school" material but just the (perfectly good) citation to Playboy. Indeed in her October 3 entry, she updated the "party school" rankings to 2015 and went out and found a different source to insert in Playboy's stead.

So I take your point, that maybe this particular edit is a trivial thing to template her on; but she has continued her practice (albeit slowed) of idiosyncratic, unexplained or deceptively described removal of content for reasons that can only be explained as in furtherance of a personal point of view. I don't think that such editing should pass without at least occasional comment, and that's what I did. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that some edits have been problematic, but I'm not convinced that any bias is intended. It looks to me that since late summer, 99% of her edits are just fine. On her user page, she does state that she has a medical issue, which may affect her editing.  I think the kind and right thing to do is that when an edit appears especially problematic, just leave a note perhaps something like this "Hi Packerfansam, I reverted your edit ... because .... If you think I made a mistake or didn't understand, please let me know ..." --I am One of Many (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another: August 12 - at List of people from Chicago, she deleted Anton LaVey – founder of the Church of Satan, and notable by any measure -  from the list; and removed the description of another individual as “Orthodox Jewish".  Her edit summary stated simply that “certain content seemed inappropriate”.  She as much as admits the edit is just because she doesn't like it.
 * I agree that 99% of her edits are fine. But the ones that are bad are - pretty bad.  And you know, while I agree (broadly) that sympathy and a gentler touch is often the better way to go, this editor has been given plenty of chances to think about her editing, and what kinds of edits are sound, and what aren't; and yet she persists.  I don't see really any kind of meaningful effort or concern on her part at all.
 * Let me suggest this. It appears that we agree that at least some of her edits are troublesome.  I am perfectly willing to allow that my approach may be doomed to fail; but I remain unhappy with the prospect simply giving her (yet) another pass.  In writing my original note to you, I wanted to be sure I had accurately recollected your participation at the ANI, so I re-read it, and saw that you said, "If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them."  Since issues do remain with her edits, and something really does need to be done, would you be willing to approach her in a way that, in your judgment, might be more productive?  I'd agree right now to stay out of any discussion you may have with her.  Let me know.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies
Thank you for your continued support and I apologize for any undue stress it may cause you. I have my opinions and and there are reasons I have them, and I'm willing to take heat for it, but I do feel bad if my actions result in problems for others. Packerfansam (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most people have strong opinions about some of the topics they work on. In some cases where I hold strong opinions, I start a section on the talk page of an article and try to start a discussion. In a few cases, I have made a change, stated the reason, and concluded that "if you think I'm wrong, please revert.".  If you feel like sharing some of your opinions and reasons for them, perhaps we could figure out some strategies for reducing the heat?  It's just a suggestion. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, my memory isn't as sharp as it once was and sometimes I forget to check things. I'll have to try to keep this in mind, thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seralini affair
I noticed you made two reverts there today, and I want to let you know that 1RR is in effect at that page. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but I want to make sure that you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's always a good idea to more fully investigate before warning. If you had taken the time to look, you would have seen that the reverts were completely independent, and one was a BLP violation for which there are no limits on reverts. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a warning, not an accusation. Just intended to be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but we don't want people to worry about possible sanctions when monitoring for BLP violations and vandalism. I know you were being helpful and you should continue to be helpful.  It's more the simple-minded solutions to controversial areas that ArbCom enforces. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, I am One of Many!


Happy New Year! I am One of Many, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Thank you! Happy New Year to you! --I am One of Many (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Susannah Mushatt Jones
I don't understand why my edits were reverted. I added some more details about Susannah's life, and changed the wording to be more coherent. Could you please explain? Thanks. EHC0413 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My view was that they weren't an improvement to the article as a whole. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of other biographies list the spouse (or former spouses) in the subjects' infoboxes. Plus I thought it was strange that the article read she was the "third of 11 kids." That's inconsistent numbering. Either spell out the whole word or just use Roman numbers. I am going to go ahead and at least make those two changes. EHC0413 (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Logical empiricism
It is a well known fact. Not incorrect. Not false at all. The Vienna Circle were the circle of philosophers who introduced logical empiricism and the forms of it in Western philosophy. The base was exactly  Tractatus. Read logical empiricism. It is a very well known fact, you must read philosophy, and to read much about logical empiricism. Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is from article:"In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Efforts to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy were intended to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s." You must read about it and you notice it's true, because it is true. This is one very important thing. Exactly WHY Wittgenstein is so important in philosophy. Not piano or brothers suicide, but the develop of logical empirism. The scientific mind! Michael Bergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Here, read very careful. This is very important things, very very complicated, OK: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/ http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/analytic/lecture10_witt1.pdf http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Language_F11/Notes/13-14-Logical_Empiricism.pdf https://philosophynow.org/issues/103/WittgensteinTolstoy_and_the_Folly_of_Logical_Positivism

Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you need to read your sources more carefully. The ideas in the Tractatus were an important influence on logical empiricism, but it was not logical empiricism. And as Wittgenstein once wrote "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." --I am One of Many (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! "The ideas in the Tractates were an important influence on logical empiricism," exactly! Now you understand. This what I said. Exactly this. Never said he was member of Wienna Circle at all. Like you think, or others. Thank you for reading it. No I cannot speak English very good, true. I learn now. But I can think. That is different thing. It was nice meeting you. Michael Sergius Alexander Ferdinand Fedorovich (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the ideas in the Tractatus were an important influence on the development of logical empiricism, that is fine and correct. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
BMK (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember to use secondary sources
Per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that it is incumbent upon editors to search for sources rather than delete content, especially when as of today there are 1137 review articles on resveratrol and at least some of the material removed is pretty commonly covered in review articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Joe Blahak page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=717179205 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F717179205%7CJoe Blahak%5D%5D Ask for help])