User talk:I am One of Many/Archive 8

South African farm attacks
I posted a lengthy but proper rebuttal on the talkpage, so I'm not sure why you didn't respond there and instead accused me of POV on my user talkpage. I know what POV and RS means, you're claim of "right-wing websites are not reliable sources" can easily be debunked (and is not to mention POV-pushing) - Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, and both left-wing and right-wing sources are acceptable if they meet the RS requirements. Of course, the article already contains left-wing sources like The Guardian, thus violating WP:UNDUE

To copypaste my argument from the talkpage here for your convenience:


 * Perhaps you'd like to elaborate? The article ALREADY has POV. That's why there's the tag, and the talkpage is littered with complaints. The current sources (The Guardian, Reuters, New York Times) all range from liberal to very liberal. That's WP:UNDUE. Per that policy, there's no reason for high-quality reliable conservative sources, like National Review or FrontPage Magazine, to not be in the article. The current version of the article is textbook POVPOSHING and makes no mention of genocide, despite that theory being popular amongst conservative sources so it's definitely not WP:FRINGE. Also, I never removed the liberal sources - merely balanced it out with conservative ones. Not sure what you're up in arms about, apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, most RS make mention of race. There's no reason to have race minimized.

Also, stop your condescending tone. Summaries like "do not keep introducing you biases" do not assume good faith and you don't WP:OWN the page.

I can't revert again because 3RR, but will expect a reply here. SweetSpicySour (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You might look in again at
…the ongoing ANI, that I just became aware of, in case you can support what I argue (innocence on the original charge, and opening a specific ANI on the tagging, with specific charges, so that I can properly defend). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the case was archived for inactivity. I suggest that you just be as cooperative as you can and it will just blow over. Cheers. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Donner Party
Why did you revert my edits ? (I'm not aware of even one error, let alone all of them. I was confident my edits were acc. MOS:LQ re WP punc in or outside quotes, MOS:NDASH, MOS:NUMNOTES re ages, and spelling of word "stepdaughter". [I guess I'm *least* confident re my MOS:NDASH changes, and maybe those were wrong. I can see hyphen is probably correct, not ndash. But for the other changes you reverted, and don't see why at all.] Please explain. If I made mistakes, I'd like to learn what & why.) IHTS (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Susannah Mushatt Jones
Hello. I'm not sure I understand your edit summary on your latest reversion on Susannah Mushatt Jones. You mention that her death is not a birthday, which is a valid point, but my edit took that into account and renamed the section, as is common in these cases. I'm also not certain what you mean by "my interpretation" of the policy: the relevant section of MOS:BODY ("Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose") is quite clear and the removal of "death" sections that cannot be expanded has been backed up in previous instances (Talk:Stuart Wagstaff comes to mind; can't think of any others off the top of my head). If you feel the need for a third opinion, then I'm happy to abide by any decision made at that venue. Otherwise, please keep in mind that longevity-related articles such as this are subject to discretionary sanctions and that conflicts should be resolved through discussion, not reversion. Canadian  Paul  04:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, I agree with you, so I changed it back. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda Arendt. --I am One of Many (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Paradox
... in all listed sources one seemingly contradictory statement, not two. Something for the article talk page perhaps. But if you go there, please bring some relevant alternative sources. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm not going to bother to revert since your rewording is close enough to being correct, but you don't quite understand what a paradox is or its definition.--I am One of Many (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, good one, this. DVdm (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 

Notification about new RFC
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!
Thanks! --I am One of Many (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

1000+ names of God
Hi I am One of Many, Thanks but you could have checked out Jawshan Kabir. I assume you did not since it mentions the 1001+ names in that article. Thanks. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank You! --I am One of Many (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA Candidate Poll
Thanks for your comments over at my RfA Candidate Poll. I appreciate it. I've got work to do, but it is good to hear that I'm not doing that badly. :) —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Amy McGrath
I moved your page to userspace since it looks like that's what you meant to do. It was in the mainspace at I am One of Many/Amy McGrath. Home Lander (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like we conflicted during a page move. I can't find the article content now! Home Lander (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what happened. I used move to move the article to article space, but I guess it didn't work.  How could you have moved it simultaneously to my moving it since it is not possible that you could have read my mind instantly while in sitting in my office in California?--I am One of Many (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm scratching my head as well. I found it in new pages and tried to move it to User:I am One of Many/Amy McGrath when you tried to move it to Amy McGrath, I think. Home Lander (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I am One of Many/Amy McGrath is in mainspace (it's missing "User:") so it should be deleted as an unneeded redirect. Home Lander (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Trying to straighten this out here. I think what happened here is the article was created at I am One of Many/Amy McGrath (missing the "User:"). I found it in new pages and tried to move it to your user space at User:I am One of Many/Amy McGrath, since I assumed that was where it was intended for. You then tried to move the original I am One of Many/Amy McGrath page to Amy McGrath but it was actually the redirect that ended up being moved (because I had already moved the original page to your userspace). I think I have this straightened out. So, I am One of Many/Amy McGrath (in mainspace) can be deleted as an unneeded redirect while User:I am One of Many/Amy McGrath (in your userspace) can be redirected. Home Lander (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok! I see, how silly of me! Thanks! --I am One of Many (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

A political candidate receiving coverage only on the commencement of her campaign does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the basis of notability if you had bothered to read about, you would not have made that mistake.I am One of Many (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi One of Many, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 22:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Jimmy McEwan
Hi there,

I see you have been undoing some edits made on the Jimmy McEwan page. It seems odd that you are undoing material that if you look at the history of the article, someone else removed the info due to copyright infringement. Thus it seems a contradiction that:-


 * one editor says that the info is unsuitable because it's a direct copy of the source info
 * then you remove the content because you say there is no source reference

How can I win in such a situation where two editors are undoing the work for completely contradictory reasons?

Hi again,

Thanks for your reply:

=
============================== Hi There,

You need to write in edit summaries that describe what you are doing on each edit. It is not unusual for IP editors just to remove content or blank articles. In your case, you are removing a lot of material without explanation. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

=
==============================

Please pardon me but could you clarify the info you feel I am removing? If you look at the history of this article it was a stub yesterday with little more than a intro passage describing the club's he played for. Since then other than an editor kind enough to add some disambiguations, I believe all of the content added since then has been added by me. So if you could clarify the info you feel I have removed that would be very educational for me.

A barnstar for you!
Thank you. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

JustAPoliticalNerd
Just to let you know, JustAPoliticalNerd's style of editing already has all the hallmarks of Sockpuppet_investigations/PerfectlyIrrational, who is laser-focused on alt-right figures in general, and Nathan Damigo and his various groups Identity Evropa and Traditionalist Worker Party‎ specifically. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know that. I was about to revert to the redirect and noticed the long article in the LA times, so I threw it in instead of reverting.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I appreciate your intentions. I think there might be an article here, but this is a frustrating way to start it, to say the least. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * You are welcome! --I am One of Many (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Scott Frost
I'm reverting your edit to Scott Frost. I don't mean this as a slight to you. Several other editors and I talked about this for some time at Talk:UCF Knights football and consensus was to include the mention in Scott Frost and other pages (McKenzie Milton, Shaquem Griffin, Mike Hughes (American football)) as is, with a brief mention of the national title claim in the body, sourced, as well as in the infobox, unsourced. Feel free to re-open discussion at Talk:UCF Knights football if you feel like this isn't the way to handle it on these pages. Boycool (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is not such consensus on the talk page.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Help us design granular blocks!
Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:
 * Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
 * We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
 * Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
 * Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
 * Block logs should display information about the granular block
 * When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
 * If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
 * If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:


 * 1) What do you think of the proposed implementation?
 * 2) We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
 * 3) Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
 * 4) Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk), Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!
Rosa Red Chateau01.jpg are red,

Good message links are blue,

My proofreading stinks,

So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)]].

Derbycountyinnz
derbycountyinnz falsely accused me of being a sock puppet and you didn’t threaten to suspend his account Coolguy48s (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't appear to be the right thing for derbycounty to have done, but retaliation clearly was the wrong thing to do. There are many things you can do without retaliating. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stations of the Elevated.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stations of the Elevated.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Stormy edit summary
There might be better reasons for your edit, but that edit summary is not true and makes no sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say "toad penis" in the source? The article states shaped like a mushroom, but we don't typically focus on that kind of irrelevant detail in wikipedia, hence BLP and false claim.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that whoever added that got careless. Many RS do say "toad" (try a search), but that's just short for "toadstool", which is what's in the source. Consider it a typo. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Trumps Toad Penis with Yeti pubes" does not convey meaning the quote in the article and it had a serious problem with tone WP:BLPSTYLE as I see it. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we remove the sentence about Psalm 90:10 from the Centenarian article?
Hi, I see that you have left in the part in the Centenarian article about Psalm 90:10 mentioning a life expectancy of seventy to eighty years. That might have very well been the case, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to use a religious text as a source. Because different religions have given different life expectancies in their respective sacred texts. For example, the Vedas give a life expectancy of 100 years, and the Hadiths in the Quran give a life expectancy of 60 to 70 years. Even if the Psalm bit was left in, the article would seem like a pro-Judaism article because it does not acknowledge the Vedas nor the Hadiths in the Quran. So Wikipedia probably should not use religious texts as sources for this type of subject matter because neutrality is a better option when the truth is uncertain. Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First, you deleted well sourced material and left a nonsense section, which isn't constructive. Second, this section is simply a survey of different sources on human lifespan in ancient times. If you have other sources, they could be included if there is consensus. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But what does Psalm 90:10 have to do with centenarians? Shouldn’t it be in the life expectancy or longevity article instead? Yellow Sunstreaker (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png
Thanks for uploading File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you!--I am One of Many (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notification of Deletion Discussion
I noticed that an article you had previously saved from deletion was again nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Shahira Barry (3rd nomination). I figured you might have comments on the nominator's rationale. Rockphed (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png


I am One of Many, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 22:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment
It's a little ironic that you commented at Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 2 This is a paradigm of a fringe theory. Has anyone actually read this unpublished garbage? Come on,Wikipedia is better than this. And yet when I deleted the fringe stuff from the article as per Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4 (User:Dead Mary stated that Aubrey de Grey is a pseudoscientist and there wasn't any disagreement afterwards), you were quick to put it back. I think perhaps your trigger finger was a little itchy. Regardless, the offending paragraph opens with the exact same wording as the previous paragraph, so if you are going to put it back in, the very least you could do is reword it so that it's not redundant. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 23:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is my view, but it didn't fit the consensus at the time as I recall it, so I looked to see if there had been a new discussion and I did not see it, so I reverted back to the consensus view. Though I do not agree with the consensus view. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png
Thanks for uploading File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png
Thanks for uploading File:Bernice Madigan (2013).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ready for review
I have an article in my sandbox that I believe is ready for review and publication. Can you tell me what the next step is? Thanks. Rick Jones (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NewMediaRockStars company logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NewMediaRockStars company logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)