User talk:Newshunter12

Newshunter12, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Newshunter12!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Bot

You can't assume a birth date based on the publication date of the article. It said she was born in January 1905 and that she had just celebrated it which does not mean it was on that day.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the situation with Jeanne Bot is not perfect as the article doesn't explicitly state her date of birth, but either we go with the implied January 18, find a reliable source showing it's the 14 or remove her. Using the implied 18th since another reliable source doesn't seem to exist seemed the best option to me, but which do you prefer? For my part, a reasonable editor could believe the article is saying she was born on the 18, but I obviously wasn't there myself 112 years ago to know for certain. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I set up a conversation on the talk page about it.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kane Tanaka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Longevity

I know it's frustrating, believe me. I was a peripheral part of the ArbCom case all that time ago, and the issues go back before my time to at least 2006. My work on this has earned me a lot of off-wiki vitriol from the 110 Club, the way they talk about me you'd think I actually go around murdering these people or desecrating their remains. It's just not worth taking personally or letting it get to you. The long game, such as it is, will work out, it just takes time; lest you be discouraged, look at WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts and WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination). Your contributions in the area are enormously helpful and valued, don't get discouraged. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) Thank you so much for your words of encouragement and for sharing the trials you have faced for many years while editing in this topic. This wiki topic is a tough realm to be in for sure, but I agree that the long game is in our favor as demonstrated by the links you provided, which I read. No worries, I will stay strong and keep editing in the topic, while letting the insults and slander against me go. I clearly have had it easy compared to you! Thank you for your compliments about my editing in the longevity topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. And thank you for getting involved. It is an interesting subject, after all, and Wikipedia's coverage of it can be the sum of all the best sources. Definitely keep at it, and I'll help out as much as I can. WP:WikiProject Longevity is looking good, and strengthening it will be a huge asset. Thanks for all your hard work, and don't ever hesitate to reach out to me for anything. (And as an aside, it is strangely amusing to see the way the longevity types portray me; insert "longevity fanboy" for "vandal" here and do the same for "troll" here and it's a huge weight off your shoulders) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring across multiple articles

Please see my note here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gabrielle Valentine des Robert

Is this a source? http://centenaires-francais.fo...e-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus Ignoto2 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ignoto2 That "source" is a forum, and forums are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. You must also provide the reliable source (a newspaper article or obituary for example) when you make a death removal; its existence somewhere else is not enough. I don't think you had bad faith in your removal, but this is not the first time you have failed to adhere to policy and I have warned you before in edit summaries, so I felt an official warning was needed this time. Please adhere to policy going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Next time i will provide a reliable sources before changing Ignoto2 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Age-related categories in general

Hi Newshunter12

Just picking up on your comment in some CFDs that you think age-related categories in general are a bad idea. I responded by saying that if you wanted to delete them, that you should make a group nomination of all of them, so that consensus should be reached on how to handle them consistently.

However, there is a technical problem: the procedure for group nominations (see WP:CFD#HOWTO) is abominably clunky and laborious, and quite daunting for many editors. So it occurred to me that if you looked at it you might reasonably be inclined to wonder whether I was blowing you off by suggesting you do something so absurdly complicated that you'd never do it.

I am sorry if any of it appeared that way; that wasn't my intent.

So I wanted to say that if you did decide you wanted to make such a proposal, I would be happy to help by listing and tagging all the categories, so that you could just fill in the rationale. I have developed some techniques and some fragments of software which make it relatively easy for me to construct large group nominations, and I wouldn't want technical obstacles to get in the way of forming a consensus on a reasoned proposal.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily agree with whatever you might propose. I just want to ensure that if you did want to make the case, its fate should be determined by the consensus on its merits rather than silenced by technical obstacles. So if and when you ever want to do, just lemme know, and if I am around then I'll help — regardless of whether or not I agree with your proposal. (I will insist on a coherent treatment of the category tree, so I won't be party to orphaning categories or deletions when merger is appropriate. But so long as your proposal would achieve its stated intent, I'll facilitate it)

On the substance of the idea, my thoughts so far are that I would probably oppose a systematic deletion of supercentenarian categs, and possibly oppose deletion of all centenarian cats.

On the supercentenarians, that is very much despite rather than because of the hideous efforts of the GRG and its fanboys to use en.wp as a repository for their fancruft. (Their obsession with some of these people seems to me to be quite creepy).

But despite the flakiness of GRG and its questionable conduct, en.wp has a number of substantive articles on supercentenarians. The GRG-spam of articles which said little more than "She liked eating a fried egg for breakfast eggs and lived to 112 the end" (I recall making an AFD nom on one article which said almost exactly that) has nearly all been listified, but there are some articles which clearly would survive AFD. Those include Katherine Plunket and Harry Patch, both of whom would likely be WP:SNOW keeps; also Jeane Calment. Even if the challenges to her claim gain ground, they will only enhance her notability, albeit maybe as a fraud rather than as a genuine instance of exceptional longevity.

In both cases, reaching that age is very much a WP:DEFINING characteristic, i.e. the characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having). So, applying those basic principles of en.wp categorisation leads me to support keeping a category system which captures the defining characteristic of those articles.

Centenarians raise different issues. Many more people reach the age of 100 than 110 (isn't the ratio about 1000:1?), so longevity is less likely to be a defining characteristic of centenarians. Many people who reach 100 will be notable for their life's achievements, whereas the chances of meeting GNG solely on the basis of reaching 100 is much lower than for 110.

However, a 100th birthday does bring special celebration in many cultures, so it may be regarded as defining on that basis. And the number is not arbitrary; it is that particular number of 100 years which is consistently regarded as special in many disparate cultures, rather than says 91, 97, 102 or whatever. So I think it's probably a keeper.

There is a similar issue wrt to Century (cricket), which is a landmark event in a cricketer's career. 99 runs is a forgotten entry in a list, but for a cricketer, the century is a v special achievement ... which is why have lots of list of centuries, but no lists of 99 runs.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts for whatever they worth. You may well hold a different view, as you are entitled to ... and if you want to propose a big pure, I'll help you make that proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl I can't thank you enough for your interest in helping me bring these categories to CfD if I am interested, but unfortunately, I am busy with other endeavors on Wikipedia, such as this. I have yet to add to this article draft, but it was my idea and there are other supercentenarian themed issues I am collaborating on with others in the up and coming Wikipedia:WikiProject Longevity. I already had to put another endeavor on pause since other editors had concerns it could effect our current work, and a huge category CfD fight is not a pot I want to stir. Likewise, I was unaware it normally is near imposable to create a large group CfD, so no worries about your intentions. I agree the GRG and their fanboys' obsession with some of these people is quite creepy, like how on the 110 club users use pictures of dead people they don't know as their own profile pictures and get off on arcane record "accomplishments".

It's also a joke that 10 years ago, three out of the top ten oldest people they "verified" have since been debunked, and another three (Calment, Tajima, Hannah) of the present 10 appear to be headed in the same direction, even if it takes time. Here is an article I AfD a few months ago. The woman liked potatoes so much her article needed five sentences about it. Thank you again so much for your kind offer. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Newshunter12: yes, GRG's work is sloppy. A decade ago I had very extensive discussions with the GRG's Robert Young (well before Arbcom clipped his wings), and also some exchanges with the academics involved in GRG who popped up to intervene. Nothing in Young's methodology, analytical style, or ability to debate issues seemed to me to come anywhere near the baseline standards which I expect of a scholar. His approach to discussions seemed to consist of long rants broken up by massive cop-pasting, and inviting the support of his tag-team at the external WOP group. That's the conduct of an obsessive fan club, not the practice of scholarship.

So I am not surprised that a chunk of his "verifications" have not stood the test of time.

Anyway, good luck with your work on Draft:Verification of supercentenarians (tho I'd suggest a rename to the slightly broader "Verification of human longevity"). It's clearly a topic on which there could be a good and important article, so I do see why you want to focus on that. A JSTOR search shows that there is a significant body of scholarly writing on the topic, so you have no shortage of reliable sources to build on.

As to the categories, if you choose to put your energies elsewhere, that's fine. The joy of en.wp is that we are all volunteers, so we choose our own priorities.

But my offer remains open if and when you choose to take it up. I also extended[1] the same offer to @Legacypac, and I'd be happy to help any other who wants to open a CFD on this.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are acting less like a jerk here. I'm not inclined to worry about categorization too much. As some of the cats empty we can just delete them. Legacypac (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)