User talk:Brendanology

Oldest Living Person

message moved to user page

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Moloko Temo.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Moloko Temo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mildred JaMais

I am aware that there is an 8th page. The reason I used the patronising capitals is because, as the recent changes on 'List of Oldest People By US State' shows, some people on Wikipedia need things emphasised. Mildred JaMais is not on GRG's Table E, so she is not verified. Fannie Buten appears on the 6th page and she is also not verified, so there are exceptions. I have little doubt about JaMais' claim. Why seek attention through exaggerating your age when you can mention how your daughter sang with Sinatra? But GRG wasn't contacted in her lifetime, so she is not on the list (yet). If we allow this case then it could open the door for more doubtful additions. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They still haven't 4 days later. Which is where Wikipedia comes into its own. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What do you two mean by "8th page" and "6th page"?

By the way, I think the "deaths" pages should conform the the GRG lists, with the www.recordholders.org being an alternate source. To simply add a case you want would open the floodgates for anyone (125? 115? 148?). We don't need that.

As for Mildred Jamais, the Social Security Death Index records become publicly available about one month after death. If these confirm her birthdate as February 15, then the case might be validated soon. People need to have patience. Official records do not come available in just four days! Get real.Ryoung122 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read this conversation carefully, you would see that '4 days' has nothing to do with Mildred JaMais. I was refering to the time that Maggie Renfro had been on GRG since her death. It wasn't a criticism. I was pointing out the advantages of Wikipedia. And this doesn't require a biting response. On this occasion you were mistaken. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to be intentionally rude, but your first comment is somewhat irritating. By "8th" and "6th" page I am talking about Calment6 and Calment8 on the GRG's website. Thank you. Brendanology^TalK 11:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, by telling you this I am just being nice. I don't think you really need to know why. It's not relevant to the discussion. Brendanology^TalK 11:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't overdo Kama Chinen

Greetings,

I disagree that the Kama Chinen case should be called "second oldest fully validated." While the Izumi case is disputed and the Kamato Hongo case is questionable, Kama Chinen's case is a bit of a mystery...why is it "anonymous" now?

Also, unlike the USA or Britain, where public records are available online, Japanese records are often hidden behind a cloak of secrecy. Thus, I would prefer the word "validated" but not "fully validated."Ryoung122 08:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. I see that now. Thanks for pointing that out. Brendanology^TalK 10:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kama Chinen, 12 Dec 2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kama Chinen, 12 Dec 2009.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 96.52.12.116 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest you (Brendanology) try again to upload the Kama Chinen picture. About the above commentary: it's disrespectful for an anonymous IP address to act as if they have power on Wikipedia, which they don't. The message should have been signed.

In addition, their rationale is incorrect. Since Kama Chinen is now "anonymous" it is not possible or likely to get or find "freely licensed media" so your "non-free" rationale is correct.Ryoung122 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Maria Olivia da SIlva.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian supercentenarians

Greetings,

On the contrary, Australia's national longevity record of 114 years 148 days, for a population of just around 20 million, is far higher than expected. Germany, with some 80 million persons, has a record of 114 years 180 days (including emigrants) and Italy of 114 years 4 days (less than Australia) despite having a population three times greater.Ryoung122 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Known for

"Second-oldest" is not a title. It may be a descriptor or a "known-for" but it's not a title. Boxing may have a "#1-contender" but that's not a title, either.Ryoung122 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Always glad to learn. Brendanology^ContriB 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

==Times of death are reported for the time zone that the person died in, not UTC time. This goes for supercentenarians and anyone else.Ryoung122 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy 15th birthday

Just a century to go to 115!Ryoung122 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Sorry I had the wrong article on this before:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of the verified oldest people. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Consensus can change. You have been warned by several summaries that the bolding is contrary to WP:MOSBOLD and you did not engage at talk. Editors get blocked for going over 3 reverts in 24 hours or for protracted warring below that limit, and if you're editing under an IP as well you're even closer. If you want to defend the bolding against the new consensus, go to talk. JJB 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)