User talk:NealIRC: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:27, 2 November 2007

Hey, I saw you on the Refdesk; apparently you've been editing articles for a long time and no one has bothered to welcome you? Well, here, have a template!

Welcome!

Hello, NealIRC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melchoir 02:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Peters (Supercentenarian)

Your changes to Thomas Peters (Supercentenarian) make no sense. You left his birth and death dates as (April 6 1745 - June 25 1857) which equals 112 years and 80 days but you changed his days of life to 111 years and 354 days. It doesn;t add up. You also say elsewhere that his age is disputed... in what way is it disputed. Why don't you put that information on Thomas Peter's Page? --Dr who1975 14:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making some changes. I'm slightly confused. Is it in dispute that Thomase Peters reached 111 years and 354 days (for instance, is his birthdate disputed) or is it just in dispute that he may have lived for 112 years and 80 days. If it's the former then Geert still never outaged him and I need to fix a few things. (like I'll have to put Thomas back in the "undisputed oldest recorded person ever" chain but just use the 111y 354d as the basis for my calculations). Let me know.--Dr who1975 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hello, I am not an adinistrator but please follow the instructions at WP:AIV when you report vandals, you started a whole new section and made a long report, they are meant to be short descriptions and using the format asked, I understand if you are new here and made a mistake, I'll assume good faith here. Thank you and happy editing! — The Sunshine Man 19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I would suggest you look at WP:RFC, or ask the user who reverted your edit, or discuss it on the talk page of the article. WP:AIV is for reporting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with "T4 sux" or something! Happy editing! SGGH ^speak! 19:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest People

Thanks for protecting the 'oldest people' page. Persons making threats against Yone Minagawa threatens the very idea that it is a good idea to report who the 'oldest people' are.Ryoung122 06:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ramsey Wood

OK, Neal, this is your chance to show what you're made of. The opinions on the talk page for this woman have come down strongly in favor of age fiction. What do you have to say?Ryoung122 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neal, I'd like you to make comments on that page. 'No man is an army' and I've done what I can to fight against this fiction being perpetrated. Ultimately the logic of the argument is less important than the NUMBER of commenters, and we can see not anyone yet besides me arguing that an unvalidated, extreme age claim should have the burden of proof upon the claimant.Ryoung122 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Neal, you added the Toby Crosby case but haven't voted yet here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29

If the article is deleted, there would be no point in adding the Toby Crosby case.

It would be a mischaracterization, however, to suggest which way you should vote...only that I believe you SHOULD vote. A lot more is riding on this than simply one person; it's the idea that age-verification research is important. And that will affect you some 15-20 years down the road.74.237.28.5 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Dorsey

Here's another example of Wikipedia: crap. Keeley Dorsey was 19 years old, a non-star on a non-major college football team. He was shot at 19. Instant Wikipedian.Ryoung122 08:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Swetland

Neal,

In regards to tbe below discussion,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_Swetland

I'd like to make several points here.

1. Being a 'dynamic marker' doesn't mean 'delete now.' Note that articles like 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' will disappear eventually. True, Glady's place in the top 100 won't last forever. However, we could expand to a top-200...I note we have a list of the '200 tallest buildings in the world' and a list of the '250 largest cities in America'. I am not 'pro-expansion' forever, but I believe that age 113...a 'second teenager'...is significant. And if it becomes not significant in 10 years, well then delete ten years from now, not now. The article should be kept for now.

2. Top-10...again a 'dynamic' as the ranking can adjust. However, consider this: if someone were '105' in 1840 they'd be in the top-10 in 1840. A top-10 system is the fairest. It doesn't matter if you come from the smallest island or the largest nation, everyone has a chance to be in the top 10. Ok, let us suppose that Marie-Louise L'Huillier lives to 119 and the island of New Caledonia declares independence in 2014. Should she be remembered for being the world's oldest person, or the oldest person in New Caledonia? Note, by comparison, the oldest person in Dominica right now is about 105. I don't see the need to have an article for every person that ever was #1 in any of the 194 nations that currently exist. OH, and then we need the 'oldest male' as well, so now we're up to 388 entries. We do have, however, lists of the recordholders by nationality and the 'living recordholders' by nationality. In short, if someone were 105 and the oldest man in Belgium...not significant. If the same man lives to 112, perhaps he'd be significant. I don't see the 'national' ranking as more important than the 'world' ranking.

Note that the United States is just one huge nation, while Europe has lots of micro-states. So, if Gladys lived in Ireland, no one would be nominating her article for deletion. Is that fair?

Finally, note that this 'nomination' is being used as a test-case model. If a relatively-high case like this (88th out of 1054 persons aged 110 and over =91st percentile or top 8.35%) falls, you can expect a lot of others...national titleholder or not, to fall. And if this bridge is burned, you can expect to say good-bye to not just the Marcella Humphrey's of the world but also the Anna Ringier articles.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice you haven't voted yet. I won't tell you 'how' to vote but I think it is fair to explain my position and why I consider to be '113' and the oldest person in Pennsylvania to be more than age 109 and the oldest person in Switzerland. Ryoung122 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shigechiyo Izumi

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B3%89%E9%87%8D%E5%8D%83%E4%BB%A3

「生後半年で両親を亡くした為、祖父の養子として育てられた。」Jpatokal 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting References

Neal, This is NOT a valid argument:

(Someone forgot to add

. What good is adding groups.yahoo.com/etc. if nothing happens when you click the link? I also removed the other external links..)

If the link is improperly formatted, fix it. Note that the WOP link only works if you are signed in. The GRG link works most of the time except when Dr. Coles is updating the tables. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE GRG LINKS.

Thank you.Ryoung122 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did fix it. www.grg.org is not a "reference" since it isn't used as a footnote. It would go under a category called external links. References are for footnotes [1] [2] etc. Anyways, I removed grg.org because most of the time, the specific tables are used (as it is for most articles). Grg.org itself is a main page. http://grg.org/Adams/CC.HTM would be a better link for James Henry Brett then grg.org, for external links. Neal 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism vs. Point-of-View

Neal, in regards to the below comment:

No, Bart you apparently added an 11th. Hmm - so it seems Bart supports the vandalism of top 11 instead of top 10. Neal 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

I disagree that Bart's editing was 'vandalism'. Vandalism would be adding someone like "I'm 13 and I'm the oldest! LOL!". What Bart is doing is editing based on a different point of view, not vandalism. We each need to learn to respect debate. Consensus is built through diplomacy, not declaring "I'm right" and then squashing all opposition. Even if 'top 10' is better in the long run, the way both you and CP went about dealing with the situation is not right. It's like the police beating a protester. Think about it.Ryoung122 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest People vs Oldest Women

Neal, don't get taken in by this argument:

+ Okay, I just read the article, and I saw it listed the top 10 women as 'oldest people' rather than 'oldest women.' It all of a sudden makes sense to me now. Now I know why all the conflict. Simple solution: why didn't anyone change the word people to women? And then we can discuss that. Neal 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is Edna Parker the world's oldest woman? Yes. But she's also the world's oldest person, which is MORE notable because it includes 100% of the population, not 51%. Think about it.Ryoung122 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Canadian Jack, you have said more than your fair share, and you're wrong. Consider Emiliano Mercado Del Toro. He was the Guinness 'oldest living man' since Nov 19 2004. But in Dec. 2006 he also became 'world's oldest person.' Since he is eligible for both lists, we need at LEAST an 'overall list' and an 'oldest man' list. Now, if you wish, we could ALSO make a third list, 'oldest women.' But since that currently would be exactly the same as the 'oldest living' list, would that make sense?

The bottom line: either there's going to be two lists...oldest people, oldest men...or three: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. But 'oldest people' and 'oldest men' aren't going anywhere.

Further, if you consider that the top-10 oldest living people list LINKS to a longer version that has both men and women on it, then we see that it would NOT be appropriate to re-name the 'oldest people' list to 'oldest women' when the long version includes men.Ryoung122 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember Emiliano Mercado Del Toro: was it not an additional honor to be promoted from 'oldest man' to 'oldest person'?Ryoung122 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

Okay, so I suppose you would agree that if the top 10 oldest people are ever 5 women and 5 men equally, then there shouldn't be a top 10 men list (unless you have top 10 women also). But I guess that will likely not happen, at least not anytime soon. Neal 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Supercentenarian Theory and the Myth of Aging

Neal, you see how a 'master' (myself), trained in the arts of 'supercentenarian theory' and the 'myth of longevity', was able to quickly identify ten likely signs that this case is fiction.

Of course, there are more. It is my hope and intention that you will learn these and other red-flag signs, as I learned them from my own 'masters' in the past. I suggest also reading up on Carl Sagan's 'baloney detector'. The next time someone comes at 'oldest people' with some bogus 140-year-old claim, don't just ask for documents; explain why the case appears to be completely made-up.

I suppose he also will buy the 'magic herbs' this 'wizard' is selling?

Note the obvious signs of the longevity myth: 'testimony' (testimonial fallacy, religious significance) 'even today' (an appeal to the past, because as modern record-keeping and education advance, stories like this become rarer) '140' (a rounded age...this is called 'age heaping') a male (though most true supercentenarians are female, the oldest age claims are disproportionately male, suggesting a patriarchal reason) herbal medicine (appeal to non-scientific healing, 'witchcraft' or medicine-man approach) five wives (polygamy) and scores of children (again, patriarchal) 'God' (use of religion) oral tradition, not written record (age based on 'festivals') no accurate birthdate money a motivating factor ('I charge them handsomeley to sustain myself') Ok, I identified ten 'red flags' that suggest that this is not just a false longevity claim, but even more so, a longevity myth...that is, based on primarily mythological reasons.Ryoung122 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, when a case is a 'longevity claim' (about 113-129 years old), the case 'mimics' reality in some way, but often has a distorted story (such as a 58-year age gap). But even further out, 'longevity myths' rely on religious belief to convince people that they're true.Ryoung122 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

The purpose of this 'category' is to 'categorize' articles that are similar in kind. Thus I find it counterproductive that this category is now nominated for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers

I also find it odd that the nominator suggests that this category is 'good enough for an article' but not a category? Sorry, I don't see 'categories' as superior to articles...they are merely tools of organization. The articles are more important. However, linking is a key to Wikipedia's success; delinking is simply turning the clock back.Ryoung122 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 Usually, when a case is a 'longevity claim' (about 113-129 years old), the case 'mimics' reality in some way, but often has a distorted story (such as a 58-year age gap). But even further out, 'longevity myths' rely on religious belief to convince people that they're true.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:green">Ryoung122</span>]] 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
+==Category: Supercentenarian Trackers==
+The purpose of this 'category' is to 'categorize' articles that are similar in kind. Thus I find it counterproductive that this category is now nominated for deletion:
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers
+I also find it odd that the nominator suggests that this category is 'good enough for an article' but not a category? Sorry, I don't see 'categories' as superior to articles...they are merely tools of organization. The articles are more important. However, linking is a key to Wikipedia's success; delinking is simply turning the clock back.[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:green">Ryoung122</span>]] 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)