Okay, thanks for the observation @scholaris.pob . I stand corrected at this point if I am wrong...There is never a virgin topic or discussion in research. Majority of we know today is a a product of what others might have done and then to improve them, we borrow their ideas, build on them, and in exchange, reference and give credit to whom it is due. This has always been my practice and I have never failed to do. Even in the course of writing my scientific papers on journals. 

You would agreed with me that no man is an island of knowledge. Never have I Said all the content of my articles are solely mine. That would obviously make me a very big lier. We only borrow ideas, hence the essence of referencing. Discussing science without stating facts the way they are maybe impossible, how it is said may differ but they sure must contain the necessary content to make them valid. Sometimes, you need scientific words to buttress points. If an author used some word and I also used it, but in another way to explain well known facts, kindly want to know if it would make it a spinned or plagiarized word? Anyone can easily write from inspiration without having to borrow concepts provided they are not discussing science.

In blogging, I try as much as possible to look for unique concepts that would require better explanation, then I pass them the best possible way. Communicating ideas the way you understand it, is the key and as much I try, I always do that and If I can't, I quote the source. My intents are pure and never with intent of spinning articles. There might be areas that might look alike but doesn't make them plagiarized content. There will always be clashes in words when discussing science, hence the reason 20-30% allowance is allowed in writing, to my Best of knowledge. Explaining things the way you understand them after reading cannot be judged as spinning. If no allowance is given, then it expected the individual must discover a novel explanation without having to borrow from a preexisting facts and laws (obviously impossible). It's just like asking someone to explain the Newton laws of motion without inputting key words that make the law valid.

One of the area you highlighted possibly needs quotation which I will admit is an oversight on my part and the needful will be done. The other part as you would observe clearly has the in-text reference attached to it. However, I do not write articles with intent of spinning.

Quick condemnation as speedy downvote makes it look personal without getting my view on the matter first. It's fine regardless.

Thanks.