User talk:CalvinTy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look through my edits...[edit]

you'll see that I've rescued some longevity pages (Ferris-Muse comes to mind). I'm most interested in making sure Biographies of Living People comply strictly with WP:BLP. Check out the history of Peter Yarrow. Or the composer David C. Itkin, whose article I created.

Dead people attract my interest too: See Shlomo Carlebach.

I've got the most edits on The Awareness Center page, mostly because of the Center's impact on living people.

I also correct speeling, punkchewashun, yousage and grammer, fairly randomly.

I'm an advocate of continuing and expanding the Pending Changes feature. Especially for BLP's.

I'm answering here because the MfD page is a particularly inapt place for the answer (or the question, for that matter).

I'm involved in longevity because the WOP project, as it stands now, flouts multiple policies, guidelines, and rules. It's also featured a lot of bullying and troll-like behavior. The longevity ArbCom case is the only one I've ever been involved in. It sanctioned one bad bully on each side heavily, and seems to have chastened some others.

Your question seems to suggest I've got ulterior motives. I have none. I'm a longtime editor and contributor and I want to improve wikipedia.

I'm very wary of editors who know, and seek to advance, ultimate truth.

Have I satisfied your curiousity?

If not, the E-mail function on my user page works. Or just post questions to my user page.

Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, it is most appreciated. As you can see, I'm still learning the innards of Wikipedia even if I have made an edit here and there since I established my CalvinTy account in 2006 (and the only one, if you and anyone else wonders). As you may see via my contributions, most of my edits are longevity-based as I always have been fascinated by gerontology -- though genealogy remains my favorite numero uno hobby. I don't often look at history of page edits or history of an user's edits because I am mostly here at Wikipedia to improve articles, not to get into potential wiki-politics. In fact, I'm not sure how I can look at specific edits of a person's history -- which I'll learn in good time, I suppose. I became aware of the longevity ArbCom as it took place, but I myself am a busy person with a family of 4 young girls (3 of them under the age of 2; twin girls and newborn girl) as well as being a network administrator at work. Online, I also am a forum administrator related to the subject of longevity. Usually, I only get on Wikipedia at work during a down time like yesterday, 25 February 2011.
(My biggest pet peeve in life is liars; it looks like my biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia is people arguing/commenting just for the sake of arguing/commenting). I just wanted to ensure that was not going on. That seems to make more and more editors expend their energies on talk pages, discussions, policies and guidelines. I'm sure some of my frustrations are reflected in my comments even though I never intended to get into middle of stuff like RSN, deletions, and so forth.
By the way, you made an assumption where none exists.  :-) My question did not suggest that you had ulterior motives (that's putting words in my mouth, heh); rather, that's why I prefaced my sentence with "to better understand your position". Like I said earlier, I'm glad you answered that here. I just had not noticed your name much in edits of the WikiProject's "World's Oldest People", that's all. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Tech advice only - To see a contributor's edits, go to the "View history" tab of any page he or she has edited. Next to their name are links to their talk page and their edit history. Usually they are called (talk) and (contribs). Click on "contribs". Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


...for the notification about Itsmejudith's accusation. I have no idea what she is on about. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have you know..[edit]

That I read a bunch of the threads there before their disappearance, complete with Robert and/or Brendan rallying the troops, and/or making comments about other editors, such as User:David in DC. I would stand by my characterization there. I invite you to read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET.. for example, I remember seeing someone (I think Brendan) mentioning that an article was going to be deleted, and how "we can't have that". SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the WP:CANVASS guideline, that was a much better read than the WP:MEATPUPPET guideline that I had already read when itsmejudith provided that one before your first comment at AE. I have made a long reply (my apologizes, that's just who I am, LOL) back over there at AE here. To quickly answer you here as well, with someone saying on a forum "we can't have that", Brendan or whoever it was, appeared to be providing his own opinion, right? He was not saying, "please go over there on Wikipedia and stop that action from taking place". If that was said, then yes, that is canvassing, I would agree. Thoughts? Thanks again for your feedback, CalvinTy 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
As stated over there, unfortunately, yes, that is canvassing: There are four criteria that need to be passed for it to not be canvassing:
Limited Posting= Ok, the 110 Club forum is rather small (the same four or five editors were regulars in the threads I scanned before they disappeared).
Messaging: Obviously, he is trying to rally members to support him.
Audience: Clearly partisan... "preaching to the choir", so to speak.
Transparency: Not open at all, but secret (Secret in that those not involved in the on-wiki discussion would not easily know that they were asked to show up and make up the numbers.)
Also Ryoung is topic-banned as a result of the recent ArbCom case, so he should NOT be attempting to continue in the disputed topic area, even as much as recruiting other editors to present his arguments for him. I know he was not always successful, and in fact one of the larger threads I read when it came to my attention was people telling Ryoung that he was directing them like a general to the common troops, and they didn't really much like it, or his tone, but still, he is topic banned from Longevity and related topics and should not be attempting to influence those articles. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@SirFozzie, thank you for the great information about the four criteria of canvassing. It was such an interesting read that it should be incorporated into the WP:CANVASS article, perhaps you could add that, if you are allowed to? I have no idea if anyone can edit a guideline page. Regarding myself, I just wonder what happens next, particularly that I strongly feel that I was not a meatpuppet & did not canvass anyone on the forum to come to Wikipedia. Itsmejudith seemed so determined that "I was fully involved.... in breaking all our rules" that I am not sure what else I can say or do. Can you advise? Thanks, CalvinTy 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Calvin, if you look at CANVASS, I took the four criteria right from that table at the top (on what's good and what's not so good :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh sheesh, I saw that table, but haha, I guess I didn't translate it well into your great bullets of the four criteria. Thanks! CalvinTy 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some articles that are of interest to you are covered by the Longevity Arbcom case[edit]

Hello CalvinTy. Since I notice you are already participating in the discussion at WP:AE#NickOrnstein there is no need to invite you there. I am leaving you a formal notice about the Longevity Arbcom case, which allows admins to issue discretionary sanctions.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Longevity if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further <struck out by EdJ> inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Final decision. -- EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, hello there. As you can see with my discussion above with SirFozzie, I'm learning about the criteria of canvassing. I have read about the recent ArbCom Longevity case that was handed out on 17 Feb 2011. Although, I was generally inactive up to 25 Feb 2011 when I began to immerse myself in better understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines so I enlisted feedback from several different current discussions going on. So if you would look at my contribs, you will see that I have been active only since 25 Feb 2011 (60 or so edits, I think). The formal notice said "if you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area", so can you kindly tell me what inappropriate behavior I have partaken in, EdJohnston? Since I have been neutral and civil, I don't believe I have done anything wrong to date so I am not sure why I should get a formal notice when there have been no consensus that I have done anything wrong? Perhaps it's better if you retract the formal notice because I was not even in the picture during that Longevity ArbCom case, does that make sense? Appreciate your time, though, EdJohnston. I applaud to any and all administrators who have to deal with this on a daily basis, and no, I'm not trying to kiss anyone's behind.  :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 02:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The notice is intended to cover your behavior from now on. I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message. I struck out the word 'further' in the notice. It would help to clarify matters if you could explain why you happened to choose this moment to begin editing Wikipedia (right after the Longevity case closed). Your participation at RSN suggests that you intend to be active in promoting the value of the WOP Yahoo group and participating in noticeboard discussions where votes may be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, I'll be more than happy to clarify anything. Appreciate you striking out the word 'further' in that template notice. To clarify per your request, I was vaguely aware of the Longevity ArbCom case but I simply was too busy being a father to 4 girls (3 girls under the age of 2; twin girls and newborn girl) and being a network administrator at work as well (on top of that, oldest girl had bronchitis then twin girls had strep throat, then my wife had virus infection then I got pneumonia -- all between January and February 2011!). As you know, RYoung122 is a member of The 110 Club, as a matter of fact, he is also a forum administrator there along with me. That would explain why I'm unable to take any action against him on the forum. He did notify the forum about the ArbCom results, but I still did not really feel comfortable participating in any comments or discussions for a long time because I felt so lost when I heard words like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:OR... I was like, what the heck are those words? Keep in mind, I have been sporadically editing longevity articles since 2009 (my first edit although my account was established way back in 2006 -- and even back then, I believe I lurked around for months or years prior to that). I had no idea about what ArbCom meant, and obviously, on Friday, 25 Feb 2011, during a down time at work, I learned so much that day and that's how I became active trying to understand the issue about Yahoo Group WOP & how it should not be used for citations, and why some people felt that GRG was not a reliable source when I felt and know enough about GRG's vetting system as I'm a GRG volunteer myself. I have validated several living supercentenarians or future supercentenarians for GRG. I also agreed with several editors (like David in DC) that the WikiProject's Future supercentenarians sub-page had needed so much improvement; that was why I took the initiative to begin sourcing all entries on the Future supercentenarians list and began to improve the page as well. I understood why Yahoo Groups WOP shouldn't be used as a citation because, if nothing else, it is a closed membership so the public wouldn't be able to see the reference anyway. That didn't make sense. Rather, since I am a member of that WOP group, I knew that most of the messages there included the original web link and source so I tried to use that web link or source to the best of my ability. I see that you selected one of my diffs, probably randomly, but just to let you know, if you were to look at several other diffs, perfect, I have one particular diff for you to look at here. You can see that I am trying to see where everyone stood on the Yahoo Groups WOP issue as well as whether GRG is a reliable source. Ever since, you know how it is... when someone gets a new game or a new hobby, for the first few weeks, they play the new game or work on their new hobby quite a bit. I have no intention of continuing being that active in the long run because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a place for people to edit articles, not to expend so much energy in all those discussions, AfD, MfD, ArbCom, and so forth.
Then I noticed that several editors, particularly itsmejudith, began to attack and accuse "everybody at 110 Club" for breaking all the rules so I was extremely puzzled and wanted to understand her position, but at first, she only told me about the meatpuppet guideline that did not seem to be relevant. Then that's where SirFozzie explained about canvassing guideline. All I know is that "just because I am a member (as well as an administrator) at The 110 Club forum, it does not mean that I personally did anything wrong". I was concerned that you sent me the notice just because I'm a member of that forum (and also why didn't SirFozzie sent me that notice?). I was just afraid a "generalization" was made, clumping up all members of the forum together, even if it is later determined that some of them may be guilty of canvassing or whatever else. As you can see, NickOrnstein is also a member of that forum but I admonished him for his lack of communication in undoing my efforts. So I think that shows that I can be neutral and shouldn't have to get that notice unless *I already violated a guideline*. Thanks once again for reading. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It is possible that the AE request might close with no specific action toward members of the 110 Club, though I believe that a warning is likely. The original subject of the complaint was NickOrnstein and it is possible he may be topic banned. Since you have looked at WP:EEML you are probably aware that Arbcom takes offsite coordination very seriously. At a minimum, the AE will end with all of the members notified of the discretionary sanctions. Since the Arbcom Longevity case closed only a few weeks ago, and the enforcement request gives evidence that there is still trouble in the Longevity area, I hope you are not surprised. If you are an admin at the 110 Club, you must be aware that the discussions in that group about editing Wikipedia raise concerns on Wikipedia. The fact that members of the 110 Club seem to argue strongly in favor of including Yahoo WOP data as a reliable source suggests that regular Wikipedia editors may want to exercise some skepticism in that regard. I could imagine a voluntary deal in which members of the Yahoo WOP group agree to identify themselves as such on Wikipedia, agree to abstain from counted votes on such matters as whether to include WOP links in articles, and agree not to add WOP links to articles themselves. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, EdJohnston. As you said, the original subject of the RfE was against NickOrnstein, who has blatantly reverted and undid edits by other editors including members of the 110 Club forum. I can understand sanctions against him. I have no qualms about that. I can see why some editors are continuing to monitor RYoung122's actions after the ArbCom Longevity case closed on 17 Feb 2011. My point is that I could have not known that some forum members could have been in violation of WP:CANVASS, regardless of whether I am an admin there or not. Like I have said repeatedly, I only became active as of 25 Feb 2011 (no matter how "soon" it is perceived after the Longevity ArbCom case -- that's an unfair assumption.) I wanted to get your response and hoped to see you agreeing with my point of view, and voluntarily retracting the formal notice. You haven't indicated why you have associated me with the possible canvassing going on by some forum members, do you understand what I'm trying to say? In light of that, you have perceived me as a "guilty party" without due process by sending me that formal notice. That is inappropriate. I now respectfully request you to retract the formal notice that you sent directly to me until there is a new (if any) RfE regarding any possibility that I have been involved with any violations of any Wikipedia guidelines.. Otherwise, anyone and everyone who edit any longevity articles should receive the formal notice, but that's not the case. You are singling me out, and that's why I now have to make the request for you to retract the formal notice. Much appreciated, CalvinTy 21:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never edited any longevity pages (or indeed any pages) nor have I ever voted on anything here. I've only given my opinion as a layperson with an interest in longevity, so I'm not sure what I'm meant to have violated! --Melissa.vp198 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, Melissa! That's why I feel that this is really becoming something that I have repeated several times already: a drumhead trial. The admin, EdJohnston, informed me on his talk page that we cannot appeal an notice itself, but we can appeal a sanction or a ban. However, I fear that he came to an incorrect conclusion and gave us the notice "simply because we are The 110 Club members". That's a very dangerous and slippery slope on EdJohnston's part, in my honest opinion. He should have not made the notice without justification as well as not making the notice based on generalization. I am confident you and I have not violated any guidelines because I know you and I respect Wikipedia guidelines. Now I know why I have avoided Wikipedia all this time..... haha. Cheers, CalvinTy 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


I've just returned to active editing. I've seen a couple of edits that seem to question just how wikipedia-savvy you are or are not. I'm tossing up what I think (and hope) is a softball here, for you to bat away and, perhaps, head off one line of debate.

Do you think there is any connection that can be drawn between your recent activity, starting right after RY was topic-banned and his observation here? If you think so, what connection do you think can be drawn? If you think not, would you mind stating so here?

Put more simply, are RYoung122 and CalvinTy both avatars of the same editor? David in DC (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, David in DC. Thanks for the idea of "batting away a softball". For starters, RYoung122 has no idea how active I have been in the last two weeks -- or at least, he has not talked to me directly on the forum or anywhere else for that long, as a matter of fact. Yikes, the diff you mentioned probably represent exactly how different RYoung122 and I are when it comes to expressing our words online. I am a fully deaf person, so my keyboard has been my friend for years and I am a chatterbox, motormouth, you name it. I also am very diplomatic and can be very soft with how I say things -- I'm not a "frank" person. RYoung122 says what he thinks, period. I think RYoung122 and I are two sides of the SAME coin... different personalities but having similar interests such as longevity. I learn very quickly -- that's just how I am, and I definitely do not think I'm wikipedia-savvy. After all, I have asked plenty of questions and clarifications in the last two weeks as my contribs would show, right?  :-)
In a way, someone could argue that you and I are avatars of the same editor as well. While you were away, I made a lot of contribs and I even agreed that sanctions should be brought against NickOrnstein in the RfE that you proposed. You and I are from Virginia (well, I live here, but I don't know about you as I saw your history that you said "my home state of Virginia" although you work in DC as a lawyer). One of my ex-supervisors commented to me years ago, "You would have made a good lawyer." I actually have to agree with him, but my apologizes to you, I just don't have the stamina of being a lawyer -- seeking out precedents or making interpretations of current law and defending them or flatly looking for a potential loophole to work with.
Anyway, what's my point? Oh, yeah, I know that the timing is so weird particularly after RYoung122 was topic-banned, but if that's all people can cling on to.. "CalvinTy has become active right after the ArbCom Longevity case when RYoung122 was topic-banned". Then, to borrow a lame typical quote from a lawyer, "that is no case at all".  :-)
By the way, I do not lie. Like I said above, I hate liars. I do have FOUR girls and a wife. As far as I know, RYoung122 is a single person by choice. He was born May 2, 1974, while I was born June 25, 1975, so we are of the same age bracket. Again, not to emphasize on my deafness, but ahem, RYoung122 is not deaf as he has been in the media giving interviews. If I was in the media, a sign language interpreter would have been next to me while I gave an interview. There you go, was that a bombshell, eh? Cheers, CalvinTy 15:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspected pretty strongly that you and he were not avatars of one person. But, given the timing coincidence and the fact that RY spoke so recently of avatars, I wanted to make sure he hadn't concocted a very different persona in order to avoid his topic ban. I once carried on a running series of dialogues with a banned editor who adopted just such a strategy, in order to so I could help make sure a prominent folk musician's article had more in it about Puff the Magic Dragon than about a blow job he did three months in jail for receiving. Check out the archives of the Peter Yarrow talk page if you ever want to see the mischief that miscreant caused. And/or check out the series of entries here, to get an idea of just how hard it can be to discourage a determined troll who's trying to execute the ploy. I'm heartened to know it was really a softball I tossed your way.
"As far as I know, RYoung122 is a single person by choice." You're very polite not to speculate about by whose choice(s).
"Again, not to emphasize on my deafness, but ahem, RYoung122 is not deaf..." Except, perhaps, to wise counsel, strong admonition, or the meaning of a topic ban.
Happy editing,
David-Who-Works-In-DC-But-Lives-In-Virginia David in DC (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Extension of Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

This is to let you know that I have formally asked for the current Wikipedia: Arbitration Enforcement has to be be extended to cover the whole issue of off-wiki canvassing. I know you have already been participating in the discussion around it and suggest you continue to present your viewpoint. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the notice, itsmejudith. On a related notice, I must have been blind the other day (although as you may see above, I'm actually indeed a deaf person) when you brought up a serious concern about seeing a post on the 110 Club forum suggesting that someone who lived near you to see you, or something to that effect (which definitely is not appropriate behavior)? Yesterday, I did find a possible post in question on Google Cache. However, I'm having difficulty locating it today, but if you happen to have the link, I'd appreciate it so I can review it. Thanks, CalvinTy 17:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

I could be wrong, but your best bet is to simply plead ignorance (which I believe is accurate given that you're new) and promise not to have any inappropriate off-Wiki discussions. Then take the time to review WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET to make sure you never violate it. Taking a more conciliatory attitude may win you more sympathy than an adversarial approach. But like I said, I could be wrong. YMMV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate the advice, AQFK (pardon me for using "AQFK" rather than spelling it out, which I typically do as a matter of habit, ironically). I had taken the time to review WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET, and like you said, I now fully understand those guidelines as I definitely was ignorant of those prior to me being more active. I try not to be adversarial because that's not in my nature, but I guess my frustration is showing and that could be perceived as adversarial. Can EdJohnston allow the original RfE to be expanded at a request of another editor (itsmejudith), not the original requestor (David in DC), just wondering? Not only that, EdJohnston felt the need to send a case notice to members of the forum without any true justification. I learned from EdJohnston that I could not appeal a notice given by an administrator, but I could appeal a sanction or ban. That upset me because EdJohnston made a generalization of all forum members when I strongly felt I had not broken any guidelines (so why should I get a notice & so forth; using statement like "to cover your behavior from now on" is not sufficient)?
As you can see, I have no problems abiding by those guidelines and understand that Yahoo Groups WOP is not a valid reliable source (even as NickOrnstein refuses to agree). That's precisely why there is a RfE against NickOrnstein, nothing more should be in that particular RfE, in my opinion. That's why I have repeatedly felt that if the scope of the RfE continue to be successful in expanding to "all The 110 Club forum members", I fear that it's going to be a drumhead trial. Thanks for your time, CalvinTy 19:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, getting a notice isn't a big deal. I'd like let that go if I were you. Yes, the RfE can expand. It's really up to the admins and so far none of the admins are against the expansion of scope, right? Pick your battles wisely. Arguing over every point will only antagonize people. I think what you want to do is prove that you are willing to learn and want to help construct a high-quality enclyclopedia. I notice that you only have 4 article edits this year.[1] Demonstrate that you are an asset to the project by improving some articles. For example, now that Yahoo references have been removed, we now have many unsourced entries. See if you can find some sources for them. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page or at our WP:HELPDESK. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"Pick your battles wisely. Arguing over every point will only antagonize people." Gotcha. That is a known problem I have -- defending everything left and right. I'll have to be careful on that from now on. Thanks.
I actually have been more focused on the WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians subpage because it had a MfD. There, I agreed to help others by beginning to provide references to all of the entries on the Future supercentenarian page. I don't know how to show my own history, but this is the best I can find (can you show me where I can show all my contrib history only on one particular page such as a specific Wikipedia:WikiProject page?). As you can see by the link I tried to find, I provided 18 edits from 21 Feb 2011 to 3 Mar 2011 on that page alone. My contribs will show that I put in edit summary in those edits: "few more citations; ongoing". Just letting you know that I am agreeing with your thought that I need to continue editing pages -- just that I've been on project pages, rather than article mainspace lately. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. I didn't think to look at the WikiProject. No, I don't how to do that. Hopefully, someone at the Help Desk can provide an answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge, I thought you would like to know that in order to show a "more conciliatory attitude" as you said, I have offered a potential compromise at the RfE. Take a look to see if it appears to be a fair gesture on my part. Thanks, CalvinTy 12:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Help desk question[edit]

I think I found the tool you are looking for. Just dropping a note here because it seemed like the conversation had wrapped up so I didn't know if you would return to the help desk. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the update. I'll check it out right now. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles/[edit]

Thanks for your help updating the Frank Buckles page with the links. Much appreciated. :) - NeutralhomerTalkCoor. Online Amb'dor • 08:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD of List of people reported to have lived beyond 130[edit]

Hi Calvin

Since you said that you thought the article was useful, you might wish to see the AfD started by Nick Ornstein. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsmejudith. I would have not seen that AfD. I'll review & comment. Regards, CalvinTy 14:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Flag icons in lists still in discussion;[edit]

Thanks for your note. I am currently involved in an edit war about the use of flag icons in various sportspeople projects in spite of Wikipedia consensus on the issue (at MOS:ICONS) and consensus on the relevant project page's talk page. Some of these "longevity" articles are on my watchlist so occasionally I make some edits on them (but otherwise I do not get involved with that project). In this particular case I was just following the lead of a previous editor and trying to be nice with my edit summary. You say I wasn't specific enough or that it sounded too much like an opinion, I say I was trying to be non-confrontational, friendly, and to helpfully point out where the IP could learn more about the topic. Whatever, figuring out what's going to keep a specific IP from getting upset and to continue to make disruptive edits is beyond me. I try to be helpful, polite, and clear, if I have failed in your eyes that's interesting but then that's your opinion as well.

As for the discussion at the Village Pump, there are always discussions going on at the Pump and the relevant Talk pages about policy and guidelines. If we were to suspend applying policies and guidelines just because a discussion is taking place then potentially they would never get applied. Even so, a quick scan of the discussion indicates that the consensus is going to be to make it more strict instead of less so. The guideline now supports removing flag icons from inappropriate places which is what has happened. The fact that you restored the flag icons is what I find odd. Current consensus is that they don't belong; it seems to me that you should wait for the consensus to change to allow them before making those changes yourself. SQGibbon (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, SQGibbon. You were helpful, polite, and clear in your edit, as far as I could see.
  • I did not say that you weren't, only that you provided MOS:ICONS in edit summary so I pressed that link and saw that it went to the entire page, which covered so many things on that page -- some not related to the issue at hand, and since you were making a revert, it would have been more helpful for the IP user to get the relevant section, such as WP:FLAGBIO, that's all.
  • Then I gave a friendly advice that using words such as "{thing} does not really belong" may cause others to perceive this as your opinion rather than quoting a guideline (honestly, it was how I looked at it, an opinion).
  • Regarding edit warring in sports projects, I feel bad as I can imagine how frustrating it is for you. I have only been active on Wikipedia since February 2011 (never mind that my account was established in 2006, and even then, I was a lurker for years before that, and that I finally made my first edit in fall 2009). In the last two months, I have seen how so much energy has been spent by many Wikipedians in talk pages -- while wiki-lawyering is not a favorable attitude, we need to be sure that policy and guidelines are continuously updated and refined accordingly in a timely manner. I am not advocating for "suspending applying policies and guidelines"; I certainly did not say that so please quote me correctly, if you don't mind.
  • I only am pleading with everyone that if something is ambiguous, and there is a growing consensus, that's great, then someone can be WP:BOLD and finally change the guideline's wording itself (and if necessary, this person could defend his/her position by using the current discussion as the consensus). I quote what Bermicourt said at Village Pump (policy) here, "It sounds like you (David in DC) are saying let's abandon debate and all those on one side (i.e. who don't like flags) should now attack pages they don't approve. Is that really how Wikipedia is meant to work?". In my opinion, he is correct. I only reverted The Blade of the Northern Lights's edit because of this very reason, and that the burden had rested with those who opposed flag icons in lists (keeping in mind that flag icons in longevity lists had existed for years up to this week). if you would like to check, I made a recent response at the talk page here. Hope this all helps clarify where my thinking is coming from? Appreciate your efforts, really. Best regards, CalvinTy 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Sorry about that, Chief David in DC (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I could see how that was confusing. Even for a minute, I myself thought, "wait, maybe there was already a longevity template on bottom of the page previously, and by invoking the template, I moved it up!!" Then, I realized it wasn't present so I just proceeded to re-arrange/re-word my comments for better clarification. Cheers, CalvinTy 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Regarding this, it would be plenty OK with me if you were to remove the bit about "I did not realize...". You're right - it doesn't matter here and it needn't cloud the issue. If consensus develops against my edit, so be it. Let's keep it entirely about the article, not any individual editor's "status". Feel free to leave it - your choice - but it certainly doesn't matter to me and I hope I haven't given the idea to others that I feel like it does.  Frank  |  talk  03:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true. I quickly typed that when I was looking at your page to confirm that I had seen your name in some 2007 discussions I had read a few days ago. It would look embarrassing on my part if I said that sentence but you were actually only around since 2009 or such, LOL. Let me remove that bit, then. Cheers, CalvinTy 04:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Swiss supercentenarians for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Swiss supercentenarians 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/List of Swiss supercentenarians 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please review this edit. I've opened a thread on the project talk page for discussion. David in DC (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png I also enjoy chess. Besse Cooper fan (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

More suggestion of a "campaign"[edit]

Check it out. David in DC (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Kids, *sighs*. Thanks for the FYI, David in DC. I see that IP's contribution history does not appear to be productive the last day or so. CalvinTy 19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Something for your consideration[edit]

See Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Title question. I'm going to post this here as well, but I especially want your and David in DC's opinion on this, as you two seem to be the most active people in the topic. Also, not to canvass, but I've got an RfA going, and your comments/vote, whether in support or in opposition, would be more than welcome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, BNL. I'll give it some thought about the name issue, though, obviously "list of oldest people" and "list of the verified oldest people" are two different beasts. Perhaps a redirect of the shorter phrase to the actual named article? By the way, thanks for the notification about your current RfA as I wouldn't have checked in the last week or so. I see it's going very well for you. Good luck in your (likely) new endeavor!  :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello CalvinTy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[edit]

Hi. Having previously been involved in a discussion about on RSN, could you join a discussion here to offer your opinion on two points? The first point is that a user is saying that some of the material on that site is not from users, but paid employees. The second point concerns WP:BLPPRIMARY, which I think also has something to say on the use of that site. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)