User talk:Ryoung122

Redundancy

I think it is a minor matter. But when you refer to a list of living people who have reached 110, noone would think that the list is only of people who are exactly 110; it is a list of people "living" (that is alive) who have reached 110. As for your example, if a batter was said to reach 200 hits for the last 7 seasons, noone would think he hit exactly 200 each season; merely that it was reached each season. The additional words ar redundant. I do not mind either way. Many thanks for the note. Alan Davidson 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Whilst I am somewhat ambivalent about the "at least" part; I noticed you added "currently" back in. For a date that is always automatically updated (that is always current) saying "currently" is grammatically incorrect and redundant. But I will leave it to you. All the best. Alan Davidson 13:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DR

sure. either go right ahead on my talk page or email me from my user page. DGG (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

next time, go to the admin who closed it and ask first. Then go to del rev if he says no or doesnt respond after a day or so. Most people will send it to AfD at that point if you make a good case. But what the article needs is better sourcing--the notability depend on Gay.com, and the item there is a clear piece of public relations. Someone, somewhere, in some actual publication, needs to have talked about it. Possibly one of the sources talking about the notable models also talks about the magazine I would be extremely reluctant to go to deletion review without a better ref, because the result is likely to be endorse, "because even if we restored it, it would certainly be deleted." That may not be really right, but it happens there. (The article is also susceptible to G11, spam), I dont think it fits really but its hard to argue against. ) Good luck with it. DGG (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Congratulations! It happened before I even had time to help! I have it watchlisted in case it goes to AfD again. My advice remains to try to get an additional reference. DGG (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

church ads

Just to explain my revert: the edits in question read like a piece of promo - link to the website after the name, referring to church enrollment as "believers". The Salvation Army section has a bit of the same problem, but that doesn't make it an acceptable style for an encyclopedia. I don't have an opinion on the notability/merit-for-inclusion of this info. - Special-T 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine

Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your note on my talk page where you suggested an article on Matt Sanchez, stripped of all references to what made him controversial. Doing that would nullify why he is of interest in the first place. As a generic blogger he is of no more interest than any other ten thousand bloggers. The main interest in him was generated when his porno past and his right-wing-award hit each other and created a thousand blogs. So I couldn't support a move to sanitize his article. Wjhonson 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Timothy J Boham

Please restore the Denver Post article which you removed. Thanks. Wjhonson 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed uncited material from this article. If you can find the citation, than please add it to the article. Wjhonson 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Acceptability of World's Oldest Forum as RS

I think that we should get a discussion going on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on whether you site is a reliable source and settle this once and for all. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way, but rather than have a big argument (not between you and I, but you and other editors) we should bring it up at the proper forum and settle it once and for all. I can help you set it up if you'd like. That way we can garner a community consensus rather that just squabbling needlessly any time you, Bart, myself or any one else wants to use it as source. The Myra Nicholson debacle has supremely highlighted the need for this. To highlight THIS IS NOT ME ATTACKING YOUR SITE AS SOURCE, just suggesting that we acquire a consensus to finalize things.

On a side note, many people combine a large number of changes into one edit to make our changes easier to navigate in the history and to prevent ourselves from having an inflated edit count. No one will make you do it but, if you disagree with one aspect of a major change, please don't just be lazy and revert the good along with the bad (ala Helen Stetter). Take a few extra moments to manually fix the precise change that you disagree with, please. Cheers, CP 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Spiffy. Do you want to start the discussion or should I? Cheers, CP 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'll do it. I'll let you know when it's done so that you can make your case. Cheers, CP 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is done. See here for the discussion. Cheers, CP 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

Mahavatar_Babaji -- talking to the wrong person... I've added nothing of the like. It was the previous editor. --Raga 11:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Page error reports

See Talk:Main Page

Biomedical Gerontology and 'Life Extension'

I'd just like to point out that the there is a rift in the 'biogerontological' community. The mainstream, elite, old-guard establishment doesn't see 'life extension' as desirable or possible for society (Bush appointee Leon Kass, for example, argues that the old must pass away to make room for the new and to make life more exciting...as if having a 'time limit' is exciting). Those working for the U.S. government, for example, tend to be mainstream and conservative in their estimations. Then there are far-out 'prophets' like Aubrey de Grey predicting 5,000-year life spans. These types tend to chase foundation funds; the less scrupulous (such as the A4M) are seen by some as 'anti-aging' quacks or those trying to make a profit by making fantastic claims, such as 'try this skin scream and take years off your age'). Then there are those in the middle, such as Olshansky, that are skeptical of huge increases but believe that moderate life increase is possible (i.e. from 122 to 130 in the next century). For this reason I question whomever decided to combine the articles of 'life extension' and 'biomedical gerontology' and 'experimental gerontology.'Ryoung122 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The old guard studies biogerontology for the purpose of preventing its application to extending human life? That doesn't seem to fit the definition of an applied science.

If there is a rift, then both factions would generally have a name. What is the name for the branch of biogerontology which seeks to prevent life extension?

Please point me to some references. Healthwise 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Discerning biomedical gerontologists from "old school" biogerontologists

I'm working on the lists in gerontology, but I don't know where to place these people:

• Steven A. Garan
• Michael Fossel
• Denham Harman
• Robin Holliday
• Cynthia Kenyon
• Thomas Okarma
• Jay Olshansky
• Raymond Pearl
• Suresh Rattan

Which ones are biomedical gerontologists?

Healthwise 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically:

Some have simply studied the aging process itself; others are attempting to extend the human life span. I suggest a quick read of their articles. I would put Olshanksy, Harman, Fossel in the 'old school' camp. I'm not sure about the others.Ryoung122 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shameful Is As Shameful Does

In other words, you didn't base your "vote" on the actual merits of the dispute, but wanted to teach me a lesson because I hold a political position that offends you. You must be very proud. Now read this wonderful discussion [1], note that the sources are far less reliable than those for Ellenbogen, that the advertising content is much higher, and tell me again that Wikipedia's varying treatment of women's notability isn't goddam reprehensible. If you can do it, that is, without your nose growing longer. VivianDarkbloom 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that your language is reprehensible. Also, your argument is a red herring: Mark Ellenbogen is a MAN, so to argue that the deletion of his article is 'anti-woman' is ridiculous. Run along now.Ryoung122 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Jolley

I replied to your incorrect assumption. GreenJoe 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How to make your signature colorful

You asked at Wikipedia talk:Editor review how to make your signature appear in color. For future reference, you can get a quicker response by asking at Wikipedia:Help desk or by putting {{helpme}} on this page.

First, go to "my preferences" (link at the upper right of your screen, next to "my talk" and "my watchlist"). Then, in the far left tab, there's a field where you can enter your signature. Turn on "raw signature", then type in the following code:

[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:green">Ryoung122</span>]]

It looks like this: Ryoung122

If you want a color other than green, just substitute the color name in ordinary English (e.g. "color:purple"). There are also sophisticated alphanumeric color codes, but I don't know those.

By the way, your talk page is becoming VERY LONG. You should consider archiving it. You can ask me how to do that. Shalom ^Hello 03:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this cloning technique?

Whole-cell intracytoplasmic microinjection

See http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/3/995

I'm not sure if this is the same technique: http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/apr2000_clon_01.html

Healthwise 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprising

There's no article on Life Extension Magazine. Healthwise 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD and start one! BE sure to cite sources.Ryoung122 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Yes, it's possible to recover whatever you may have "deleted" from your talk page. Wikipedia saves every previous version of an existing page, so unless the page was deleted by an administrator (which is very unlikely), I can recover the page history and move it to an archive.

I'm going to take a few minutes and archive this stuff for you. If you don't like the details, you can change them, but the basic idea should be okay with you. Shalom ^Hello 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove day-counters

Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for your advice, it won't happen again. I thought it was ugly, first (aged 116) and then again aged 116 years 347 days...but now it makes more sense. Skirgedot 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me when I did something stupid

I kinda went a little overboard when I saw the wrong info on Ruby Muhammad. It was stupid of me to do. People on wikipedia don't know how lucky they are to have you on this site. Alot of people may not know but I know that you have to go throw alot of these false claims. So I can understand how hard it can be dealing with these people. But thank you for being so nice and you stopped me right in time. Once again thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I made it look even better, people. Extremely sexy 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Vaupel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Last_veterans_of_World_War_I

RYoung, I've read the comments on that chat page and I agree with you. I can't convert the article into something more meaningful and the information is best maintained simply and efficiently in the other veterans list. I decided to put a Request For Deletion on the page but unfortunately the template isn't working for it. If you could arrange that instead I will pop over and vote on its deletion. RichyBoy 09:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On Lamebull

I do genealogy for fun and I did some research on Lamebull and concluded that her parents may not have been sure about her age, or given the same name to multiple daughters, or changed their daughters names, or, or, or. Thoughtman 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

The census matches are quite certain as to identity...she is the only one on the census that matches. However, it is possible the ages given 'could' be incorrect. However, facts are facts...so far I have not seen the claimed 1896 baptismal entry or other earliest documents. Until that time, her age remains disputed/uncertain. This is not meant as disrepect; it is simply what the facts show.Ryoung122 08:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Disrespect

To talk about contingencies of the death these senior people is disrespecful (Gertrude Baines). I would be upset if I were her or a relative. The sentence should be removed, but as there are a few days to go I will leave it alone. But please respect the sensitivities of these people in the future. Alan Davidson 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we actually agree. It should not have been written in the first place. I did not mean to offend - just that (and you agree) it should not be there. Many thanks for the comments. All the best. Alan Davidson 11:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Master sock-puppeteer

Just out of curiosity, after reading this entry, I am wondering how to protect myself from someone hacking my username. Sure, setting up a couple of dopplegånger accounts to cover usernames close enough to mine that at cursory glance could pass as mine, but i sounds like this is a genuine hack. If I am hacked, how do I protect myself, and identify myself to the appropriate folk? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you should consult a sysop-level administrator...I'm just an editor.Ryoung122 08:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

DEATHS - Justin Tuveri

Justin Tuveri (13-05-1898 / 05-10-2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.250.220 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He was, however, more likely born May 15th instead of 13th. Extremely sexy 17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Longevity claims

I agree with your point about categorization, but I won't take for granted everything that some "gerontology research group" says. I feel that the groups based in the West have been reluctant to "investigate" the claims coming from, say, Russia or China. We need to see who finances them and then make appropriate conclusions. According to official Russian statistics, Smetannikova is the oldest Russian alive. If you follow the links, you will see that there are 19th-century church records that seem to verify her age. Until today, our page listed some pre-1917 expatriate as Russia's "national longevity recordhorder", at age 110, simply because a Western-based group has more trust in a paper issued in 1913 in America than in documents kept in a remote Siberian village and endorsed by the Russian government. This smacks of racism to me. In fact, there are several reasonably well-known people in Russia who approach the supercentenarian age. For instance, Boris Efimov, who turned 107 last month and was shown on the Russian TV recalling his student days in Petrograd during the February Revolution. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting of comment

I reformatted the e-mail you posted at Talk:Matt Sanchez because it was very hard to read; indenting text disables all of the formatting conventions, including text wrap, and made it a chore to read (scrolling back and forth). I hope you don't have a problem with that; if you do, revert it. Horologium t-c 04:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of Wikipedians by edit

Why do you insist there be a placeholder? There being a placeholder is not the issue. The issue is I do not wish to be on that list in any way, shape or form. Having a placeholder does not satisfy that, and I'm not doing it to avoid recognition. I'm doing it because I believe in the principle that edit count does not matter. That being said, I've just broken the 3RR for the first time ever for this, and I will continue to do so, until my name is not on that list. Report me, if you will. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are completely in the wrong. 'Placeholder' is just that...a placeholder. That the value just happens to match your edit count doesn't mean it is you. Last I checked there were lots of other placeholders, too.

Think of it this way: the list of World Series champions lists 'no champion' for 1994. Also, in tennis a few years were skipped due to war. Listing a PLACEHOLDER is merely for formatting purposes...that is, if my rank is #10 and you are #8 and you decline to be listed, well that doesn't move me up one. Instead, 'placeholder' maintains the place.

Get it?Ryoung122 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's *not* the same as that. You're basically forcing someone to participate in a contest they didn't want to enter, then are forcing them into rankings at the end of it. I never *wanted* to be extracted from that database dump, but I was...and added to the list. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving ^demon out of the list won't hurt anything. If you want, add a note at the bottom saying some users have opted not to participate, so the rankings ignore those users. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the top of the page already says "editors are free to remove their name from this list, and to add their names to this one. When they do, do not revert." --Kralizec! (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the real problem with Wikipedia: reliability and verifiability. Why should the facts bend to the whims of those that want to throw a monkey wrench into everything? Also, 'demon' deleted others besides himself...Ryoung122 03:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Contacting me

If you wish to contact me about this issue, do so privately (ie. email) - the main factor for my removal of my name makes the idea of public correspondance silly. In short: do not leave any messages on my userpage about this or related issues, ever. Daniel 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to stay off the List of Wikipedians by edit page, any more re-addition of names will result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, contacting daniel after he has told you not to if harassment, and will again result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I note the misspelling of the word 'correspondence': that says about all you need to know about this.Ryoung122 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Delaire veteran WW1

28 march 1899-1 october 2007 http://www.letelegramme.com/gratuit/generales/regions/cotesarmor/bernard-delaire-le-doyen-des-bretons-decede-108-ans-20071003-1709732_1065858.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.252.143 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But was he in fact a veteran? Extremely sexy 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Are you flirting with this guy or what? All your comments seem to cry out "notice me, notice me". Just an observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.118.139 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned comments are not worthy of a response.Ryoung122 07:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul

Ironically, "our good mutual friend" has been trespassing the 3RR (=3 times revert) rule himself over here, while also deleting a perfectly good question posed by me on his own talkpage in the process, so what do you think of that? Extremely sexy 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer for Robert Young. I think deal with it, it's my talk page. And I wouldn't even put "our good mutual friend" in sarcasm quotes, for I have never claimed such a relation. Also, the 3RR doesn't apply to your own talk page. Cheers, CP 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bart is suffering from 'Stockholm syndrome', whereby he begins to form emotional attachments to his opposers. Ryoung122 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I suspect that was as much a joke about me as Bart, I have to admit that I laughed when I read it. Cheers, CP 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good one, Robert. Extremely sexy 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Including me, Canadian Paul, 'Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me'...but as they say, 'takes one to know one'. It's really based on human nature, tribalism. If a beta-male is defeated by an alpha-male, the beta-male attempts to re-direct this defeat into a situation more favorable. This includes becoming an 'ally' or paying homage/patronage to the alpha-male, in return for 'protection' from the stronger. This is what feudalism was about. Please note that, depending on the social situation, we might be the alpha-male in one situation and the beta-male in another. So, our social relations of power include the context. A 'father' may be alpha-male over his teenage son, but when he gets to work, his boss becomes 'alpha-male' and he becomes 'beta-male.' But the boss, in turn, has a boss...

Ryoung122 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living people/women, etc.

With all due respect, your little note on my page was rather insulting. I think I made a good and cogent argument for having the lists as I suggest. I never touched the main page and was perfectly willing to accept the consensus of those who contribute to the page. If any one has to "cool off," it sounds like it is you. The page as it stands is inconsistent and I simply pointed that out. If others disagree, so be it. It's only my opinion.

It also seems you have misread what I was proposing and why it makes more sense than the status quo. It seems clear to me that the 10 oldest living lists were likely created much the same way the all-time lists were created - since there were only three or so men in the list of those who exceeded 115, it made perfect sense to have one all-time persons list, followed by all all-time male list as there'd by no way to know that otherwise.

However, when we get to the living people list, that issue doesn't so readily apply. Indeed, it is the reverse. We are in a situation where, once a man reaches the current living person list, we have a list which has 9 (or less) living women, but a list of men 10-deep. My proposal is simply to eliminate the "oldest person" list altogether and replace it with an "oldest women" list (currently identical) to avoid the inevitable situation where this list discrepancy arises.

This is common in many other lists - say all-time Marathon lists. If a woman was to rank all-time in the top 10 runs, she'd still be on a separate list - the women's - and we'd still list the all-time men's list even though a woman's mark was better than one or more of the men.

The basic problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be a cogent reason why we have to insist on a 10-deep persons list, but not to list 10 women when we list 10 men when a male makes the top 10. By keeping them segregated by sex, that eliminates the problem. To those who say "well, you can always check the other page to see who #10 is," simply begs the question: then why not do that for men as well? Why even have the list? Canada Jack 01:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. With respect, I think you are missing the point.

I'm not missing any points. I already answered the question.Ryoung122 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you said and simply saying I am "wrong" tells me you have not grasped the conflict I have identified. The conflict is correct - perhaps my solution is not correct, but the lists as they stand are inconsistent, that is indisputable. Next week or five years from now, whenever, we will have a situation where a male reaches the top 10 all-person list. And when that happens, if the current lists stay status quo, where we have a 10-deep list for men and a nine-deep list (or lower) for women. No one has yet identified a cogent reason why we should be more concerned with having a deeper list for men than for women. To simply say "go to the linked page" begs the question: why not simply do the same for the men's list?

I don't feel that the "oldest person" list is as crucial as you state, as one can readily appreciate who that is by comparing the top of the oldest man or oldest women list. As for your trans gender note, I think you would have to concede that that is somewhat unlikely. Even if it WAS a possibility, one could quite reasonably ask: Why not a list of 10 oldest trans gender people?

But how about I concede the point that seems to be your main concern. How about I concede the need for an "oldest people" list. I think it is fair for you to concede that it seems odd to list the 10 oldest men but only 9 or less women when a man makes the persons list. Even more so if four or five men possibly make that list. While you might cite demographic trends pointing to the unlikelihood of that, you would have to admit the discrepancy could easily become more acute. THAT is what I am trying to address.

I don't think you understood what I was saying: I can see your point about 'wanting' a women's list as well as a men's list. But this is not a book; Wikipedia is not paper. It can be edited in 'real time.' Thus, there is no need to worry about a problem that will happen in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Ryoung122 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a solution which I feel not only addresses both of our concerns, but also makes the page more consistent. Since the early all-time lists are 1) a list of people who have made a particular milestone followed by 2) the top 10 list of men why not do likewise for the living people?

If we had a list of living people over 112 years, followed by a top 10 male list, that would solve both our concerns. I'd say that the milestone list should ensure a minimum of 10 females, and since this list would be 20-deep currently, it would not needlessly lengthen the page. It also has one benefit currently - it identifies where the oldest man ranks over-all. Canada Jack 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We already have a 'main article' list. The top-10 list was meant merely as a brief summary.Ryoung122 04:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, with all due respect, read my argument. I am not some teenager engaged in a silly debate.

For someone with such an impressive list of credentials to speak on this subject, your attitude here has been imperious and insulting. I am on a lot of pages here, and I don't typically receive this sort of treatment.

I noted the discrepancy and offered a solution, then one which addresses your need for an "oldest person" list, matching the structure of a previous pair of lists, and I did so in good faith. And I've been treated by you in a manner which can be best described as being "blown off" without any indication you have bothered to seriously considered my valid critiques.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject of longevity, I have and will defer any comment on the minutia of the subject to others. However, when it comes to lists and whether they are logical and consistent, there are several glaring examples of what seem to be arbitrary lists with an emphasis on detailing various categories of male super centenarians while not doing the same for women.

The ONLY pair of lists where the approach makes sense is the "oldest people ever (115+)" list followed by the "oldest men ever (top 10)" as only 3 men make the former list. An arbitrary milestone list followed by an arbitrary rank number list, which fleshes out the list of the minority category from the bigger list.

But the reconstruction of the eldest living male list begs the question: Where's the similar women's list? A man was eldest in the world for some 15 years of the 46 years since 1961, about 1/3 of the time, so where's a similar list for women?

But that isn't so egregious to me as this "Top 10 living" issue.

Perhaps you can answer for me this simple question: Why do we need a list of 10 oldest men, but not one for women when, as you note, men make that list, as recently as this year? True, there is a link to a master link, which begs the question - then why do we even need the male list? Canada Jack 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, I was concerned with the "original research" issue though it would seem we already have that on the page - as far as I can tell, Guinness didn't keep an "oldest living man" list till 2000 and it would seem others compiled it back to 1961, which would seem to me to be "original research," though I may have that wrong. "Persons listed prior to 2000 may be based on an historical reconstruction" is a bit ambiguous and to me at least doesn't rule out original research.

We are talking of TWO things. The first I am not terribly concerned with and I thought it did stray into the realm of "original research." But for the "Oldest living Men/people" lists you said..."She's already listed in the '115+' list which is INTENDED to catch those who might otherwise not be listed. That includes persons such as Bettie Wilson and Susie Gibson, both of whom lived to 115 but fell in the shadow of Maria Capovilla. Note that if we created a list of the 'world's oldest women', not a single woman would be listed who isn't already on the page, since at least 1986."

First, we don't need to create an entire list, perhaps notes to fill in the three gaps pre-1986. And, you seem to want to avoid the fact that there are some 25 years accounted for before 1986, and of those 25 years, men actually were leading the "oldest living people" list for a longer time than women! Specifically for the periods Jan 1961-Mar 1962; Jan 1966-Mar 1968 and Nov 1976-Feb 1986. That's about 13 years of 25 years for the 1961-1986 period, more than half the time, and no way to figure out which women had the female title during that not insubstantial period.

And, given the controversies over the Izumi claim, it might be more than a passing interest to know who the eldest women were for that decade. But I concede that to compile such a list would be "original research" and so I wasn't really seriously proposing another list here, more pointing out the inconsistency. Which I am sure you aware of anyway.

My major concern is for the "Top 10 living" lists, and in that case a) I think I provide a sensible solution to a similar disparity and b) with no original research required or change from the "oldest people" title, your concern.

"Further, what you consider a 'gain' for women is just one way of looking at it. Is it more to say that a woman is the oldest of 51% of the human population, or 100%? I would think that 100% carries more prestige."

Sure, but I already accepted that premise for the Top 10 lists and offered a solution, one which is consistent with the all-time lists. Perhaps you have misread what I now propose for the 10 oldest lists. What I now propose would not require any original research - it would keep intact the "oldest living person" list except making it into a MILESTONE list rather than a Top 10 list. The nub of the problem is that a Top 10 list will not be comprehensive, a milestone list - say all those older than 112 - will likely have all the aged ladies, and the Top 10 living males list would simply fill out the inevitable lack of males. As it stands, if the "oldest living people (top 10)" was changed to "oldest living (112+)", the list would be 19-deep, would include one male, and therefore have the added current benefit of including the overall rank of the eldest male. I keep hearing "you can go to the link," which begs the question: Why have any list there at all? If we already HAVE the list, 100+ deep length-wise, then we should only have the eldest person on this page, NOT a list. Since we DO have the lists, might as well make them a bit better.

So, I agree that to correct the first situation requires original research. But the second one doesn't. To me, it boils down to changing the oldest living to a milestone list, with the only potential problem in altering the milestone to ensure it has a minimum of 10 women and doesn't become too long. Cheers. Canada Jack 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my crankiness yesterday - it would seem we have a lot in common in terms of interests and skeptical temperament. For example, I have turned the pro-UFO "Roswell" page here into a balanced account of the incident, something many here thought impossible. And we likely share New England roots though my ancestors left there in the 1750s or so. I can trace back to 1620 in that region. Canada Jack 15:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NPA

Please respect WP:NPA. Thank you. Cheers, CP 04:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the below statement:

- ==Sukesaburo Nakanishi== - - Congratulations on making the 'English' Wikipedia less culturally diverse and more anglo-centric.Ryoung122 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC) - :Please respect WP:NPA. Thank you. Cheers, CP 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your actions did result in a less-diverse listing for supercentenarian entries, therefore the statement is factual, not a personal attack. Further, I question the 'bundling' of three Japanese articles into one entry. Note that every 'top 10' oldest living men have articles on Wikipedia, except for two Japanese (the ones you deleted). You are simply taking advantage of the fact that it is more difficult to get Japan-language contributions here in going after these articles. Thus, I do consider your actions to be, strategically, not in the best interests of the general reader of Wikipedia concerning 'supercentenarian' articles.

Ryoung122 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note as well that I cannot delete an article by myself - consensus has to be reached. So there were others that agreed with me. So if truly wasn't a personal attack, then you should place your notice on the page of everyone who voted delete. By the way, the articles on people do not have to be in English - if any of the articles had been expanded with purely Japanese sources, that would have been fine too. But they weren't, because the information wasn't there. Do Japanese privacy laws have anything to do with that? I will continue to nominate any article for deletion that does not meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, whether that article comes from my culture, the culture I study or any other one. Cheers, CP 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I had prodded three Canadian high schools that were also deleted today. Nice karmic balance. Cheers, CP 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sukesaburo Nakanishi

Yeah, I saw that it was slightly different that the rest. But some of the keep voters argued to delete all of them, even after taking the differences into consideration, so I think the consensus was pretty clear. I won't argue, though, that lumping a bunch of articles into a single deletion nomination is always "fair" to each one individually, so if you feel it's proper, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- RG² 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian trackers

Hi Ryoung

I'm sure that your intentions are good, but your postings to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers are becoming disruptive, and I have just deleted a lot of material which is irrelevant to the discussion. CfD is not the place to discuss the details of a possible article, but simply to discuss whether a category should be kept, renamed, merged or deleted.

Per WP:TPG, posts at CfD are normally kept brief, and restricted to a few pertinent points. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maria de Jesus

Thanks. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Count War II

As usual, started by the anti-list forces!

User Duk,

I do realize that this message may be 'tilting at windmills' but I feel it needs to be said.

In the 'edit count war,' the anti-counters have given NO GROUND WHATSOEVER while the pro-counters have repeatedly attempted to compromise and mediate disputes. What I DO find extremely lame is the objection to the use of 'placeholder' or 'anonymous.'

Now, it could be said that since:

A. Wikipedia is free B. Wikipedia is OPEN to the public C. Editors who sign up and contribute do so VOLUNTARILY D. That, in fact, anyone's 'edit count' is public record

That the making of a list with everyone's name on it is, in fact, within the principles of Wikipedia.

Now, I DO realize that, humanly speaking, the media and others can be obnoxious in the over-assertion of 'rights' to 'free' and 'public' information. From following Princess Diana around to publishing lists of the '400 richest Americans', it can be quite tiresome for some who don't want every detail of their life publicly displayed.

And I, and a lot of other Wikipedians, are O.K. with that.

That's why the proposal for 'anonymous' or 'placeholder' was made. It SEEMED a valid compromise. The user, who objects, would no longer be identifiable (in fact, the irony is that those who ostensibly object to being identified have no problem publicly signing their messages on the 'comments' page). User 'Durin' claims to be retired, but such is a ruse; he continues to participate in Wikipedia. The anti-placeholder crowd has been inconsiderate, rude, and unable to understand a key principle here: the 'placeholder' is NOT about the person's identity or name...it's about list integrity. I don't want to be #2916 when my real rank is #2936. If users like 'Durin' who ostensibly don't want to be publicly identified, but go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows who they are, don't want their User ID on the list, fine. 'Placeholder' gives them NO credit and, further, if one were to compare their own edit count to 'placeholder', it would be comparing 'apples' to 'fruit X'. We could 'weigh' both fruits and determine that 'fruit X' weighs more, but we still wouldn't know what it was. However, the comparison remains for the apple.

In the Wikipedia example, if the list exists with 'placeholders' then those who choose to use the list will be satisfied (the list is accurate and knowledgeable) and those who choose anonymity SHOULD be satisfied...they don't have to visit the page and no one else will see their name if they don't. It's like the saying: If you don't want to see the movie, don't go.

Now, suppose we made a hand-made list that manually adjusted the ranks of those users who wished to be listed, but gave their 'correct' rankings? Would that make everyone happy? Hey, it's not YOUR name, it's not YOUR rank.

But what's the purpose of doing something manually when a computer can do it instead? The computer, though, calculates the ranking based on the entries, so a 'placeholder' is needed to ensure the rankings are auto-calculated correctly. So why not add in a 'placeholder'? What if we called it 'human-bot'? Would that make it better?

If, on the other hand, one insists on the deletion of not only one's User ID but also a 'placeholder', then the list becomes just as distorted as if I added the computerized bots back in. It affects everyone on the list below one's ranking. Such a deletion is therefore unfair.

Why did the latest 'edit-war' erupt again? Because the first 'war' was not concluded in a fair and equitable manner. One side attempted compromise and mediation, the other side demanded EVERYTHING and plus add a 'stick it in the eye' disclaimer of 'do not revert' which, in fact, is itself in violation of Wiki policy, which calls for CONSENSUS WP:CCC and also differs from the spirit of WP:NPOV which states:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views

Now, I realize this isn't an 'article' page, but surely it isn't too much to ask to have Wikipedia editors follow the principles of Wikipedia in their edits. Using terms such as 'lame', 'meaningless,' etc hardly qualify as proper attempts to reach or achieve consensus or otherwise.

Thus, this problem will continue until two things occur:

A. A compromise, neutral, consensus view emerges. Since the pro-list camp has already given ground, it really is the other side's turn.

Or:

B. Get a decree from some top person

Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, and libel) have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?).

That makes a decision.

Again, it can be legally argued that use of 'anonymous' or 'placeholder' NO LONGER identifies that person, such as a police report blotting out a person's name. Legally, that person and the edit count are no longer identified as one; they should not have control over that information.

Is that too much to ask?Ryoung122 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read WP:CANVASS, and do not canvass in support of a particular outcome to a discussion in wikipedia, as you did to the CfD on Category:Supercentenarian trackers. I have posted a note to the CfD discussion, giving evidence of the canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

BHG,

In regards to the below message:

[edit] Canvassing Please read WP:CANVASS, and do not canvass in support of a particular outcome to a discussion in wikipedia, as you did to the CfD on Category:Supercentenarian trackers. I have posted a note to the CfD discussion, giving evidence of the canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The canvassing policy states that it is OK in certain circumstances:

The following table explains under which circumstances notifications are considered acceptable ("friendly notices") or unacceptable ("disruptive canvassing"). In a nutshell, to avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small (or seek out WikiProjects), keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions.

 Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency 

Friendly notice Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open

↕  ↕  ↕  ↕ 

Disruptive canvassing Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret Term Excessive cross-posting Campaigning Votestacking Stealth canvassing

Please note that:

A. I did not tell people how to vote

B. The messages posted were public, not private

C. I have suggested more than one outcome for this discussion

D. There was no 'mass posting' but a few posts to individuals who may have an interest in the topic, but not be aware of the current discussion.

Please stop with the 'informative' messages. I am quite aware of the policies as written.

Also, is this a discussion or a contest about winning? Is this about material or about procedure? Last I checked, categories were a useful method to link similar articles, to ensure that they were not 'orphaned'. Note that there are three great benefits of Wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia:

A. anyone can edit B. there is no time limitation (current events are included) C. articles can be 'wikilinked' for further information

True, one could create a 'list of' and add a 'see also' at the bottom of every page, but isn't that what 'categorization' is for? Further, if the problem is specificity then I have already suggested broadening to a 'longevity researcher' category and merely make this a sub-category. I note, for example, we have a subcategory:American supercentenarians for the persons who are verified to be 110+ and American nationals. Yet should the verifiers remain some 'Wizard of Oz' behind a curtain, or should transparency be established to educate the public as to:

--supercentenarian theory --supercentenarian research history --those prominent in the field, both in the past and present

The bottom line is, perhaps we need a WIKIPROJECT: CENTENARIANS or WIKIPROJECT: SUPERCENTENARIANS.

The goal proximate goal is 'redundancy'; that is, if you remove one person from the system it does not collapse. Multiple interweaving, rather than article orphaning, makes sense. The ultimate goal is education.

I note the word 'supercentenarian' returns 37,400 Google hits:

Results 1 - 10 of about 37,400 for supercentenarian.

Use of a hyphen returns even more:

Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100 for super-centenarian.

Simply because you have not heard about, or do not care about, a topic does not make it 'not important' or 'not notable.' Studying the world's oldest people has already identified causes of death that were not previously known. Currently, there are studies under way on this population group by institutions including the U.S. government:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505

Tearing down the multiple linking of articles, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to do (so that we can 'click' on the link for more information) seems counterproductive at best. It's like telling Galileo 'not to use his telescope', lest he upset the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, this is not the 17th century, is it?

Ryoung122 07:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, one of your messages, to Kitia was neutral. But the message you posted to User:Alandavidson, to User talk:Bart_Versieck said "Despite the fact that such a category provides a positive rationale for organizing similar articles, it seems that others have nothing better to do with their time than to tear down material that is 'useful to persons on Wikipedia.'" That is not neutral.

The message you posted to NealIRC said "I find it counterproductive that this category is now nominated for deletion". That is not neutral.

The message you posted to yahoogroups said "I believe that such a deletion only dimishes, not improves, Wikipedia" and concluded "Simply unacceptable. Regards Moderator". That's not neutral.

In short you posted non-neutral messages to three other users and to a yahoogroup. That's votestacking. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of those persons are LONG-TIME, ESTABLISHED editors. Most did not even vote. That's not vote-stacking, that's making a case.

Also, please read my user page. Thanks.Ryoung122 10:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to make your case at CfD. Recruiting CfD participants with a clear statement on the desirabiliy or otherwise of a particular outcome is votestacking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How long will this discussion last though? Extremely sexy 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear BHG,

Congratulations on signing up at World's Oldest People. Note if I were really into 'votestacking' I'd be recruiting people like this:

You are right Mr. Young. This guy 'most likely' used his grandfathers age. The guy only looks like he around 92 or so. So 1869 was probably his grandfathers birthdate. Thank you for telling me that. Plyjacks 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are interested in the subject and would definitely vote to keep.

Instead, I mentioned it to long-time, established editors who may be interested, not everyone. Bart Versieck has over 15,000 edits. In fact I had 'asked' for suggestions for 'renaming' and, in retrospect, I'd like to make 'supercentenarian trackers' a sub-category of 'longevity researchers'. If we can find a pro-active solution that does not involve 'deletion', it would be better for everyone.

About me:

I am employed as a supercentenarian researcher by: --Georgia State University --Boston University --Guinness World Records --Max Planck Institute --Social Security Administration --Supercentenarian Research Foundation --Earth's Elders Foundation --David DeJonge (presidential photographer for Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich) --NBC news --BBC --Al Gore's Friends of the Earth

etc

Some of my work was displayed at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

I am here on Wikipedia to 'give back' to the community and educate the public. I am not here to cause problems for long-time Wikipedians. However, it is true that what I do may not be well-known to the general public. Yet when you hear of the world's oldest person passing away, everyone hears of that.

Sincerely, Robert Young World's Leading Expert Ryoung122 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Habib Miyan

You are right Mr. Young. This guy 'most likely' used his grandfathers age. The guy only looks like he around 92 or so. So 1869 was probably his grandfathers birthdate. Thank you for telling me that. Plyjacks 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN on CfD disruption

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ryoung122_disrupting_XfD_discussions.

Please note also that I have restored my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) to its state before you edited it. Please do read WP:TPG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have countered your report by reporting you for disruption. Did I delete what you said? No. Were some of your statements incorrect? YES. Did you delete my statements? YES.

Ryoung122 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, you claim to be a researcher, so please follow the advice given to you at ANI and at the AfD take some time to read WP:TPG and learn how to participate in discussions without being so deeply disruptive. Note that your second attempt to chop up my nomination was reverted by another editor, not by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Truce Proposal. I would very much like to operate on Wikipedia in a proper manner. Despite all the negativity, I was looking for a response like the one (above) and I finally got it. The current Irish record is 111 years 327 days set by Katherine Plunket (in 1932!), the oldest record in the book. Other public Irish cases to 110+ include Florence Lytle, Elizabeth Yensen, and Catherine Furey...a very short list. We know that Irene Richardson (born May 29 1896) made it to 109 but no updates since. The lists we have include over 1,000 cases worldwide.

Please note that my original creation of an 'autobiography' was partly factored by the creation of the article David Allen Lambert by himself...an autobiography. He was involved with ONE supercentenarian case. ONE. I had over 1,000. He deemed himself notable with a little self-publicity coverage. Seem fair? Not quite. Also, some have been asserting that persons such as Mary Ramsey Wood were '120' when the evidence pointed to 97. When the question became 'on what authority' do you say she was 97, it made sense to create my own article and provide a link to it from the appropriate article...because, in actuality, I am the authority.

Note I didn't include in my autobiography: parents, high school, anything like that. Only material relevant to answering the question: why should a reader of Wikipedia trust me when I say that someone like Micajah Weiss isn't really 114 years old? As a child, I was 'fooled' by several cases that turned out to be false, such as Pierre Joubert (claimed to be 113, turned out to be 82). It became my mission to educate the world as to how long people really live. Wikipedia is a part of that education mission.

Note that I was the major case contributor and co-organizer for this book, which also was made into a featured exhibit at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

This book included a foreword by U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. That was in 2002...before Guinness hired me.

So, already in 2002, persons like Jerry Friedman searched for an expert and they found me. He lived in Connecticut...I lived in Atlanta. Hardly what I'd call a 'local' story.

Yet even earlier, in 2000 I had gotten an invitation to Germany to attend the FIRST annual conference on supercentenarians. In 2004 I was called to help form the 'Supercentenarian Research Foundation.' Thus I have been not just an 'editor' or 'listmaker' but involved in setting up the very apparati that are now involved in this emerging field.

When the Wall Street Journal wanted an expert, who did they turn to?

Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal"We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, .... Club Has One Requirement: 110 Birthday Candles," The Wall Street Journal, pp. ... www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Similarly, I have also been cited/quoted/mentioned in the NY Times, Japan Times, BBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. I actually worked on a project for an NBC news segment in 2005 with Max Gomez.

OK, if you don't think that makes one notable, then fine. But I expect to see junk like Keeley Dorsey done away with. Two touchdowns and oops, died at 19 from the heat while in practice, does not constitute 'notability.'

By the way, I have already developed the 'XX theory' of gender differentials in supercentenarians. It's not due out, however. I agree on the 'professor' front I'm 'not yet notable.' That will probably change in the future. But in the meantime it seems that I should be counted as 'notable' based on the fact that, when the media want a person to turn to regarding supercentenarians, they often turn to me. That's over 1,000 newspapers on all six continents...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia. This is not a little 'hometown' citation. For example, ABC news:

ABC News: 2nd Oldest Man in World Dies at Age 113Moses Hardy, Last Known Black WWI Vet, Dies at 113; Listed As 2nd Oldest Man in the ... Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2711726 - Similar pages

ABC News: Oldest Person Dies at 114 in ConnecticutEmma Faust Tillman, World's Oldest Known Person, Dies at 114 ... Her four-day reign was the shortest on record, said Robert Young, senior consultant for ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2831097 - Similar pages

Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:

http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm

have cited me (even though I'm not linked to it and not deriving any money from it).

Thus, there is no 'fear' that mine would be the 'first' of many additional articles. Actually, mine wasn't the first...E Ross Eckler Jr, who worked for Guinness in the 1950's, was the first article. Thus I see myself as continuing in that tradition. I did not decide to be notable...others decided for me. Every group I was with, invited me to 'help' them get started on the subject. I have done more than 'create' lists. While true that Louis Epstein was also a pioneer, I have already invented several concepts including organizing data by 'oldest by year of birth' and invented ideas such as the 'age bubble effect,' 'XX theory of gender-related lifespan differential' (why women live longer). In 2002, I overturned the long-standing notion that 'life expectancy increase in the West began about 1750', instead demonstrating it went back to the 1200's. That's notable...to researchers. Maybe not to those concerned about cartoons on TV.

So, I propose this: I will be 'polite' and 'civil'. In exchange I request that you not delete material that, even if you don't consider relevant, I do, and consider that some statements made, even if not intentional, may have been incorrect. For example, that article you said didn't mention me, actually mentioned me seven times. It is only fair for whomever may vote to delete me would do so based on the actual facts, not miscontrued information. Is that too much to ask?

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Robert, it's quite simple. Read WP:COI and WP:TPG, and follow the advice therein, then your contributions will not be deleted if they stay on-topic. If you would, as you say, "like to operate on Wikipedia in a proper manner", then you urgently need to learn how to participate in discussions. That includes limiting your contributions to issues where you have a conflict of interest, formatting your posts properly (such as by indenting carefully, linking to diffs rather than pasting conversations), and sticking closely to the matters that are relevant to the topic in hand. As one example of that, the facts relating to the age of a particular person have no bearing at all on whether you meet wikipedia's notability requirements.
  If someone goes an academic conference, and repeatedly interrupts proceedings by talking at great length at issues which are not the purpose of the meeting, they will eventually be thrown out for disruption ... and the same thing can and does happen on wikipedia. I think that part of the problem here is that as well as not understanding WP:TPG and WP:COI (or choosing not to follow them; I don't know which applies, but it's one or the other), you also appear to each not understand or not care about the guidelines such as WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, which set out how wikipedia determines notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Selective enforcement of the 'law': if as much effort were made to clean up Wikipedia as were made to dislodge my one auto-biographical article, there'd only be about 1 million, not 2 million, articles here. Note the argument is NOT 'other stuff exists' but that 'other stuff with far fewer citations of notability' exist. Is this really appropriate? Banjee? Encyclopedic? Contributes to education? Or merely mirrors the slang/gang culture from some quarters?

If 'autobiography' were the only issue, then what about David Allen Lambert. I'm sure that he wouldn't meet the standards you're attempting to hold me to.Ryoung122 14:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Autobiography is not the only problem with your article, and in any case is not in itself a reason for deletion (just as your own heated defense of your own claim to notability carries little weight, per WP:COI). If you are aware of other articles on people who do not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, please do nominate them at WP:AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to David Allen Lambert. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Allen Lambert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Erdős numbers deletion review

I saw that you offhandedly mentioned the deletion of this category in the AfD of your article. If you're interested, someone has opened a deletion review and there is also some discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. LaMenta3 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Replies

I've responded to your messages on my talk page. One is quite long, but I hope you find it helpful. LaMenta3 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is really confusing and I don't to side with anyone. Anyways, I think LaMenta3's replies are most helpful. Even if you do have a point, chances are that it will be discarded based on your actions. Some people prefer to look at the editor's actions rather than his works. If you want people to see your case in a better light, put clear and concise replies and do not disrupt other people's comments. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I have replied again on my talk page. LaMenta3 01:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Barbara West

The problem is with her birthdate. Several sources cite a different date (see Talk page), and the source given in the article might not be reliable. Rklawton 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was not made clear by the tag, which suggested that she was a passenger on the Titanic may be uncertain, which it's not.Ryoung122 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert J. Gamble (centenarian)

Is Robert J. Gamble (centenarian) real or not? You would know better than me, and his page is orphaned, so I can't tell. Cheers, CP 19:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a hoax, I suggest deletion.Ryoung122 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

{| align="left" || |} You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Katr67 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: Ryoung122 admitted Aslan119 is an alternate account of his at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 Katr67 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI again

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ryoung122:_more_canvassing_and_a_sockpuppet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude of intelligence

Actually, if you bothered to check the discussion, you'd note that it is policy and guidelines which win. Also, I personally very much resent the implication that maybe as few as six points on an IQ test is really "orders of magnitude of intelligence." Just an opinion, anyway. Also, while I can agree to an extent with some of your claims regarding the recent discussion of your article, I think the question might be that, in a sense, there isn't enough substantive coverage of you as an individual, specifically biographical elements, which would merit the creation of a separate page containing, in effect, a virtual resume, as few if any "biographical" details could be noted. Having said all that, however, if you honestly believe that you have a case, I would recommend persuing deletion review. Alternately, however, I think that it could very easily be possible that you might be able to add the personal/professional information to another article, and turn the article with your page name into a redirect to that page, possibly even to a specific section of that page. That might well be acceptable. And, again, if you want to make a case for the restoration of the article in deletion review, I will certainly at least check to see if what the arguments made are and make any comments I might make based on the information presented there. And, of course, if you can find (or even, ahem, assist in the creation of an article in say, an alumni journal or college newspaper or magazine about you specifically), existence of such sources would probably be sufficient for an article here to exist as well. John Carter 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case, what was basically happening was that Michael was attempting to make the Ebionites article show that early Christianity was substantially different from what is called "Pauline Christianity", and that almost all of the information which is had about the era is colored by the "hostile takeover" of Christianity by the Pauline forces, based on the works of three individuals. One of these is a fringe source at best, and the other two can be substantially counted as scholars, even though they are on the perimeter or fringe of scholarship. The fact that his behavior included seemingly falsifying references, demanding that his own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH be accepted as creditable, and regularing attacking others such that all the editors who brought the article to FA left it because of him. Personally, I have seen people whose behavior was better than his behavior on this article get permanent blocks, and am honestly somewhat surprised he didn't. John Carter 19:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Rose Mueller

They are trying to delete her just because she recently died ("only 111") even though she has a great article. I agree with you, Ryung, that Wikipedia is really starting to get on my nerves (not that it hasn't already: They blocked S-Man for a joke, they deleted the spongebob articles and several others I created, the accused me of being IndigoGenius, shall I go on? And yet I have to be little miss good girl 14-year old editor when I'm not even a girl! I'm a boy!) ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How old are you?Ryoung122 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

You're right: "if this article is deleted, it's not the end of the world." So why are you spamming everyone who voted for delete? Get over it. Your disruptive editing is very close to earning you a block. —Moondyne 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I thought that certain persons like you MIGHT be reasonable. Even if that doesn't mean changing your 'non-vote', when your rationale for making a decision is based on misleading or complete information presented to you, then it is only fair to present the other side. Apparently, some people 'just don't want to hear it' but, block or no, they are going to hear it because they are, in fact, WRONG. And isn't Wikipedia's policy 'no original research'? If what is said is VERIFIABLE from sources outside Wikipedia, it should be reflected as such in Wikipedia. And it's Wikipedia vs. every major Western publication in the world. That's NOT consensus. That's not smart. Think about it.Ryoung122 23:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring - reply

I've replied on my talk page. Carcharoth 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

I have just deleted from my talk page a whole paragraph of an AfD debate copy-pasted there by ypu. Robert, I and others have reminded you of WP:TPG often enough, and I have had enough of your spamming of my talk page. Please don't post anything to my talkpage ever again; it will deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Rose Mueller and defining 'notable' and 'not notable' by age

Delete. I started reading the article thinking that it would be a clear keep, but had to abandon that idea as I read though it. There are no inline citations, so it's hard to tell which of the facts asserted are sourced where, but of the three links provided, one is just an entry in a list, one is a dead link which doesn't show up in the internet archive, and the remaining link is to 247-word news report which offers far fewer facts than are in the article, supporting the suggestion that the article contains a lot of original research. Even if the missing article was was substantial, she still falls far short of WP:BIO. It would be great to include a properly-sourced single paragraph on Mueller in a list of extremely long-lived American people, but without massive new evidence of notability this standalone article looks like a clear delete. If the article was plausibly referenced I'd suggest a merger to a list, but I don't see anything here worth keeping unless new sources are available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think this one will survive. I thought she was 'going to be' notable. An overeager teenage fan (Jacob Walker) apparently started this article. A few positives: she looked lovely holding a mirror, had an interesting migration story (born in a French remnant of Alsace, came to America on a ship in 1915), and for her 110th birthday was photographed outside the nursing facility,

http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_7403953

There was additional coverage of her 111th birthday on MSNBC. As for a 'memorial', she is on the GRG website. I do note that Ms Mueller did NOT rank in the top-500 all-time list.

One indication of 'notability' due to age is coverage outside one's home state or territory. If the death is reported nationally, on the AP wire, that is a strong indication of notability.

Generally, I am trying to include on Wikipedia as separate articles:

--those in the top 100 all-time (for which sources are available) or top-10 living --oldest in a European nation, Japan, or major U.S. state (states like New York, with 19 million people, yes...Delaware, maybe not)

For those that don't qualify, we do have a temporary list of oldest-living (if they die, they get deleted, and that's it) and if they make it to the top 100 (current minimum: 113 years 189 days old) or the top-10 or 15 oldest-living then we give them a separate article. Ms. Mueller was ranked 48th-oldest in the world, so is outside that range.

Often other factors, such as gender (men don't live as long), or war veteran service, or 'oldest in a nation' in a smaller nation (such as Switzerland), lead to articles being created for persons just at 110.

In 2006 I created many of the articles, but in the past six months now the supercentenarian article-creation has shifted to mostly teenagers, and even I think we should wait until the person's notability is clearly established, and by that time someone else had already created it. Thus it's not totally within my control anymore.

A final issue is that the sources may disappear (become archived). They are available for a fee or via such entities as Lexis-Nexis (free for college students, a fee for others). One 'workaround' is that the World's Oldest People webgroup posts the actual article and the link, and it is still freely available.

A search of the Yahoo portal (one of the top four in the world) finds as the #return for worlds oldest people:

Worlds_Oldest_People : World's Oldest People ... and photographs regarding the world's oldest people (108+). Only proven cases ... She is currently ranked seventh in the world among the world's oldest people. ...health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People - 18k - Cached Oldest people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in second, Wikipedia, which cannot be a source for itself:

... time served as "World's Oldest Person" for the 36 people following Betsy Baker ... and lifespans of the world's oldest people are continually increasing due to ... Quick Links: Oldest living people - Oldest living men (since 1961) - Oldest people ever (115+) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people - 166k - Cached

Thus, I do suggest that the World's Oldest People webgroup be considered, at the least, a reliable 'external link' which will provide additional, archived sources. This may not save Marie-Rose Mueller (who probably needed to become the state's oldest person to gain more than 'passing' notability), but it would seem to me to be a common-sense, fair approach.

Yes, I did remove you from membership (and you probably signed up with an alternate account). If we can come to some mutual understanding of what IS and IS NOT an acceptable supercentenarian article on Wikipedia, I'll let you back in to the World's Oldest People webgroup. Clearly, it is a waste of both of our times if people are continously creating articles only to have them deleted. Defining what will 'stick' (not be deleted) beforehand should result in fewer articles for deletion. It's a lot less emotional if the article were never created in the first place, then to have to go back and get rid of what was clearly a lot of work on the part of some. Clearly, there were COI issues (IP address 76, apparently a family member) but the original article was started by a non-family member, a teenager who was inspired by Ms Mueller's spunky attitude (disdaining medication, for example).

Why I am putting this message here? It's clear that this topic is presently on the minds of both you and Kittybrewster, and that the general Wikipedia community and the 'supercentenarian fans' may not share the same views as to where to draw the line on 'notability.' I do note that articles on the world's oldest person always survive, and I do think we need a few more below that (for diversity, for national records, for state records, for extraordinary runners-up such as Bertha Fry, third-oldest in the world but not even the oldest in her state), while the vast majority of the 500+ persons aged 110 do not have their own articles. Just to give you an idea of the numbers range:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of Apr. 18, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age number surviving deaths yearly Cumulative 123 0 122 1 -1 100.00% 100.00% 121 1 0 0.00% 99.90% 120 2 -1 50.00% 99.90% 119 3 -1 33.33% 99.80% 118 3 0 0.00% 99.69% 117 5 -2 40.00% 99.69% 116 10 -5 50.00% 99.49% 115 23 -13 56.52% 98.98% 114 62 -39 62.90% 97.66% 113 125 -63 50.40% 93.69% 112 261 -136 52.11% 87.28% 111 504 -243 48.21% 73.45% 110 983 -479 48.73% 48.73%

The above data, from the GRG database, as compiled by yours truly.

http://pimm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/sens3-stephen-coles-on-the-secrets-of-supercentenarians-slides/

Check out slides four and five. Dr. Coles gets his data from me, not the other way around. Dr. Coles performs the autopsies and other biological work; I do the paperwork (decide if the case meets the criteria for validation).

So, we see that of 983 deceased cases, 504 made it to 111. Since this does not include the living, Ms Mueller's ranking was 519th (ranking may change as more data become available). This may give you some idea of how many articles Wikipedia would need to include 'everyone'

Age 110: about 1,000 articles (and growing) Age 111: about 500 articles (and growing) Age 112: about 250 articles (and growing) Age 113: about 125 articles (slowly increasing) Age 114: about 62 articles (age of current world's oldest) Age 115: about 25 articles (not changing much)

In reality, because some choose anonymity, the total article counts would be about half that if we made every article we had an obituary for (not just the documents).

Perhaps Wikipedia could establish a policy for age-related articles: how old is old enough? What about males, who don't live as long?

and since the goal of Wikipedia is to establish 'consensus', that is what I am trying to do. So, what say you? 

Ryoung122 12:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephen Coles

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stephen Coles, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles. Thank you.

AfD nomination of Germaine Haye

An article that you have been involved in editing, Germaine Haye, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germaine Haye. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely per reasons stated in your block log. Your behaviour is wholly unacceptable. I have also blocked your other account, as you've been causing disruption with it as well, and I feel that is abusing alternate accounts. Maxim 13:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryoung122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock or, failing that, a time limit and a restoration of my user page. I have been the one willing to discuss issues, not the other side. Note I attempted to add a discussion to user BHG's page; her response was that she didn't want to talk about it. The charge of 'unverified' is patently untrue. Ironically, the main criticism is that I kept posting evidence that what I said was the truth, which makes this a circular argument. Also, even if blocked there is no time limit and my user page has been blanked, which is not fair. Blocking is supposed to be used for persons who are being unreasonable. Some may view my actions as unreasonable, but I do note that the current dispute was also begun by the other side, and that since Wikipedia is not mirroring the status quo outside Wikipedia, there is something wrong here. Akin to a stock price that needs adjustment, or the price of housing, sometimes the market 'overcorrects' itself, but there certainly must be a 'bottom' somewhere. I can discuss further details if an admin wishes to do so. As far as contacting admin:Maxim I do not see Maxim's page or e-mail address, thus I request another admin to review this situation. Finally, I find it ironic that I was blocked for posting a message to the WP:ANI page. It would seem that there would be a fair discussion of both sides before a decision was made. This clearly has not happened. Perhaps the final irony is that, outside Wikipedia, my position is the normal position (as has been recognized as such for over a year on Wikipedia itself). Only within the past two weeks has a single user asserted herself to make Wikipedia the end and the sourcing, instead, which is quite oxymoronic.

Decline reason:

Nope. You have been abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As we've been talking on my talk page, I should say something here. I can't defend in any way your behaviour towards BrownHairedGirl, and calling for her to be blocked was unacceptable. I've pointed out at ANI that you do seem to need more experience of Wikipedia outside of the areas you edit in. I suggest you take a few weeks to calm down and then if you still want to edit Wikipedia, to file another unblock request (here) making clear you understand why you were blocked and what has changed in the interim period. Carcharoth 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I don't see a link where the 'here' button is, and I don't understand whether it is OK for me to edit this page without again being accused of sockpuppetry. However, disclosure: if you check out the 2008 Guinness Book (or 2007, for that matter, also page 2), I am listed in the 2008 book twice, on page 2 and on page 287. There are 17 'senior consultants' listed, for the major areas of the book--not an 'infinite number'. (Junior consultants are not listed--for example check out the 2005 edition, page 23--there is a listing of the world's oldest people recognized by Guinness since 1955). Senior consultants are used to ensure the accuracy of the information presented by hiring experts to verify the claims made. Note that some of the other Senior Consultants have their own articles on Wikipedia. I also agree that, while it might be best for me to stay away from new editing until this current controversy dies down, there have been several cases of false accusations made against me. So far there are four false accusations of sockpuppetry (Stan Primmer, Cjeales, Kletetschka, Chip69). In the cases where I did edit using IP addresses beginning with 131, they were easily linked to GSU and thus I admitted who I was, in effect. Yet despite having been proven right each time I denied a sockpuppet was not me, there are those who continue to doubt what I say even as some have made comments such as "I haven't even looked in the Guinness Book" and "I don't know if GWR still does the world's oldest people" (see Gerontology Research Group AFD discussion here):

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

Query re: "The 14-year-old GRG, which the "Guinness World Records Book" now relies on to confirm longevity records", the claim was made on the Robert Young AfD that 1) Young was listed in the same way as any other person who mailed in a submission to the GBR and 2) that the GBR no longer reported the "oldest living person". I don't have a copy of the GBR, could someone verify that 1) the Guiness Book still reports this category, 2) that the GRG is cited as their official fact checker on this, and 3) that they have some status higher than the average person who licks an envelope and mails it to GBR. Given the misrepresentations and exaggeration seen in the GRG related AfDs I'd feel much better if these claims were verified by an independent source, one not taking the GRG at their word. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should one really be accusing me of making things up when all they have to do is go down to the local Borders bookstore, browse for a bright red Guinness book, and open it?

Some misconceptions:

A. I am a 'stamp licker' and 'mail in submissions. INCORRECT. Others mail the submissions to me, I decide if they meet the standards for VERIFIABITY as per Guinness World Records. While the editor-in-chief has veto power, they have so far found no reason to do so. Note that I have even offered evidence online, when the data is publicly available, to show that the case is true.

B. Guinness 'no longer reports the world's oldest person.' The 2006 edition accidentally omitted the world's oldest person, which perhaps explains why that person was replaced with someone else (me). The 2007 and 2008 editions, and all but one edition since 1955, have listed the world's oldest person.

C. Misconception: there is no way to verify that GRG data is used by Guinness. Reality:the GRG is listed in both the 2007 and 2008 editions (page 67). The GRG is the largest source, but there are avenues of applying that don't go through the GRG. I do those cases as well. Thus, I do ALL the cases, including the GRG cases and those from other sources. Many of the GRG cases come from me, as well as many of the contributors to my webgroup, World's Oldest People.

D. There are 'legions' of Guinness Senior Consultants. No, there are 17 listed in the 2008 edition. Some are covered in Wikipedia articles such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Shuker

In such categories as

"Earth, Science, and Technology" "Life on Earth" "Engineering" "Sports & Games" "Music"

etc.

The statements about me are not just 'verifiable,' they are 'true'.

Now, I do realize that some of the articles, as first written, were not of the best quality. Some points to consider:

A. My philosophy is that an article begins as a stub, and then it needs to be seen if it will remain, and gradually improved by others. If I do all the work, doesn't that smack MORE of COI? Letting others edit the article seems like a good idea.

B. This summer, with articles on Wikipedia dropping to as low as Keeley Dorsey (minor college football player from a newly emerging program with one career touchdown, notable for dying on the practice field), it seemed to me that, exercising the 'Wikipedia is not paper' understanding, that if notability could be established, an article was deserved. Given that Dr. Coles had been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and on CNN, that seemed 'reliable' to me. Further, your average college professor may publish a lot of respected works, but I view 'founding' an organization (not an informal discussion group!) as notable in itself if the group itself has had a major IMPACT. Given that Guinness World Records decided to go with the GRG as their major source for world's oldest people cases, it seemed that others (secondary sources) decided 'notability', not myself and not the GRG. As for 'self-promotion', if you check the www.grg.org website, you find NO ads or products available for sale. Contrast this with this website here:

http://www.worldhealth.net/

Lots of ads, spam, etc. Even commentary from the NY Times and the state of Illinois:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15aging.html?pagewanted=print http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/klatz.html

Thus, to accuse the GRG of 'self-promotion' without reliable sources is simply violating WP:OR, WP:POINT, and/or WP:NPOV. Contrast that to the citations above for another group.

Regarding this line of questioning:

Stephen Coles is not a professor at UCLA. At least not according to the UCLA directory lists a him as a visiting scholar in the computer science department. That's a very far cry from being a professor. If the UCLA directory is correct, then stating that he is a professor is a falsehood, and knowingly stating a falsehood is a lie. Robert Young doesn't really work for Guinness, right. Is he an employee? Does he doesn't get paid? Or does he just mail them stuff? Those are the open questions. Pete.Hurd 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Coles is 66 years old. I was under the impression that he was still a professor at UCLA. I have since been informed that he WAS a professor but has retired. In any case, simply editing the term 'professor' to 'visiting scholar' seems reasonable.

Finally, there have been many statements made that I have not had an opportunity to respond to, given the current block. For example, it was claimed that there is no evidence, even on the GRG website, of GRG locations. Yet we find on the very front page:

Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., Atlanta GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH GROUP

Thus, another incorrect assertion. Need I continue?

Finally, for those who still question my assertion regarding Guinness World Records, please e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com and I will be happy to provide evidence. Note that checking Wikipedia for what a 'consultant' is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultant

A consultant (from the Latin consultare means "to discuss" from which we also derive words such as consul and counsel) is a professional who provides advice in a particular area of expertise such as accountancy, the environment, technology, law, human resources, marketing, medicine, finance, public affairs, communication, engineering, graphic design, or waste management.

A consultant is self-employed or works for a consultancy firm, usually with multiple and changing clients. Thus, clients have access to deeper levels of expertise than would be feasible for them to retain in-house, and to purchase only as much service from the outside consultant desired. It is generally accepted good corporate governance to hire consultants as a check to the Principal-Agent problem.

Do consultants get paid? A consultancy is designed by corporations to save money via tax and benefit structures, but generally the tradeoff is a consultant makes their own schedule and is paid more than a salaried employee. However, I don't see a COI because you can't get higher than the number one position, which I have attained. Please note that if users such as

Carcharoth

would like, I can provide proof to back up my statements regarding GWR, degrees, etc. I do find it ironic that, seeing as I am in the business of being a skeptic and investigator of stories that don't quite add up, that others would 'turn the tables' by countering with their own degree of skepticism. What they do no yet seem to grasp is that I welcome such scrutiny, because scrutiny brings us closer to the TRUTH, not just VERIFIABILITY.

In a court of law, a defendant is allowed to make a case, why is that not allowed on Wikipedia? And I note that while I made multiple arguments via my own AFD, that was concerning THAT article (Robert Young), not the GRG article, not the Dr Coles article, not the 100+ supercentenarian-related articles that were nominated after (see on my talk page above) I had asked for mediation re: the debates. The request for mediation was met with the most egregious violation of WP:POINT I have ever seen. Yet no one dared say they were bad-faith nominations.

Finally, I believe in following the rules at Wikipedia...when the rules are equally and fairly applied. We have multiple, multiple demonstrations of abuse of power, and now there is even an accusation that someone hijacked a user account to make it look like a sockpuppet of mine:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/9096

Re - User CHIP69 has been using my email address, the problem has been reported. My apologies Mr. Young for the moron who has done this.

Dear Girouard Richard,

Thank you for your mail.

"Girouard, Richard" <Richard.Girouard@CIBC.ca> wrote:

Good morning :

It has been brought to my attention, that my email address has been use for someone name Chip69, that recently open an account with you. This so call person has sent me an email, saying that he or she has used my email address. When I went to check out the yahoo address, it didn't exist. But I would like to clear up anything that this person has done. From what I have been observing, this name is being caught in between some kind of feud. If possible please have this name removed or cancel from your database.

Thank you/Merci Beaucoup

Richard Girouard

The email you reported to us was not sent by Wikimedia, but by someone who is "spoofing" an address at our organization. Unfortunately, due to the way internet e-mail works, it is trivial for spammers to produce such false addresses, and there is no way for us to prevent it.

Wikimedia does not send unsolicited email. These messages are not sent by us, nor through our servers, nor with our consent. We regret the inconvenience.

The Wikimedia Foundation is an international non-profit organization which operates some of the largest collaboratively-edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia. For more information about us, please see <http://wikimediafoundation.org>.

Yours sincerely, Chad Horohoe

-- Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.

I have no idea who did this, or who was involved in it, but with FOUR false accusations of sockpuppetry now identified, and myself admitting to using the 131 IP addresses (from GSU, no less!), might I ask:

whose story really checks out? Let's try 'assuming good faith' and work to improve articles that appear able to be improvable.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also do not understand why my 'user' page was blanked rather than simply blocked. I can understand the argument to block someone from editing main-page articles or even discussion pages for those articles, but one's own personal user page should remain editable. Thus I am asking for a restoration of the user page, and the block discussion can wait. It might actually be better for me to wait until December. Hopefully things will have calmed down by then.

I don*t understand that. Because BrownHairedGirl is an admin she can make a war against supercentarian-articles? If you look how many articels are nominated for deletion in the last days from her someone must wonder why one person can do so much damage. Think about what I wrote on an other place:
Is Wikipedia running out of Webspace or why someone want to deleted a lot of articels? Wikipedia is a compact source for a lot of different themes and only because some admin don't interessted in this theme says that it is unimportened. A lot of people are interessted in supercentarions.
Yes, Robert Young isn't always the niced person on the world but he did and do a great job and I like(d) to work with him. Blocking him is to cut out a good worker. Why is an admin untouchable when he or she do crazy things? Is to be an admin a one-way-ticket? (Meens: If you are one you can do what you want and no one can stop you?)
I thought wikipedia is a democratic expansion of public knowledge...
Statistician 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We determine things by consensus, and blaming BHG is complete nonsense as there is clearly a consensus that RY be blocked. The articles that have been nominated for deletion will only be deleted if there is a consensus to do so. I'm sure that lots of people are interested in supercentarian issues, but that doesn't (necessarily) make every associated article encyclopaedic. If you think otherwise, put up reasoned arguments. As long as they fall within WP policies and guidelines you will be heard, but the final decision is not one person's - its the community that decides.

A read of postings to this talk page and RY's most recent contributions should leave any fair-minded person in no doubt that he thought he was a law unto himself and wasn't interested in following Wikipedia policies. —Moondyne 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, interessting. Someone say that Robert Young should calme down... but when I look at the work of BHG I'm thinking about we she shouldn't calme down, too? Why doesn't other wiki-admins without envolment handle this case? Think about it. Are you only on her side because she's a admin, too? And again: The an admin sacrosanct because he or she ist an admin?
I read RY's most recent contributions and the posts on the worldsoldestpeople-Mailinglist and I don't understand your point? What's wrong about showing other people what some admin ist doing on wikipedia? This are free information... I call the showing democracy.
And as I said before: Robert Young isn't always the nicest person but I couldn't see why it should be against wiki-rules if you show other persons critical point - do the admins of wikipedia have to hide there doings? I don't hope so!
Btw.: Why didn't BHG nominated some articels of her that don't correspond with some wiki-standarts?
Statistician 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there another sockpuppet or is the accusion of Robert Young für this false?
How many false Robert Young Sockpuppets were blocked? How many damage will be done by ne sockpuppt-accusions?
Statistician 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

This whole brouhaha caught my attention because Louis Epstein is an old acquaintance. I don't 'take sides' on articles about people I know, but I don't see any 'conflict of interest' for me on the rest of this dust up. Using multiple accounts and/or calling in support was an understandable move, but a bad idea. When it becomes a battle people have a tendency to stop listening to the merits and focus on 'beating the opposition' instead. You'll have to deal with sorting that out - Carcharoth has been giving you good advice for how to accomplish that. However, going back to the actual issue which prompted the dispute, before it got sidetracked by this latest chapter in the never-ending 'war of personalities'... it seems to me that you were right. You very clearly do meet Wikipedia's standards of 'notability' for inclusion and some of the other articles in question may as well (though I take no position on Louis's). I'm going to start a new 'Robert Young' article with detailed references and sources. --CBD 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CBD, you are entitled to your views on Robert's notability, but an AfD has only just concluded in which there was a consensus that that he was not notable. Rather than recreating an article which has just been deleted after one of the longest AfDs I have ever seen, it would be better to add a little about Robert to the article Extreme longevity tracking which Carcharoth created for exactly that purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod created that article, actually, and I only created supercentenarian tracking when following up a suggestion you made, and then later I merged it to Johnbod's article. I suggest adding the information to extreme longevity tracking, and then when the section gets too large, spin it off to form its own article. Hopefully by the time that happens, some of the dust will have settled from this. DRV is also a possibility as well at some point. I know DRV is not for this type of thing, but sometimes consensus is wrong. Simple as that. Sometimes quiet recreation (with massively improved content and sources) is the best way to improve the encyclopedia and avoid the drama. Objecting to that is process for the sake of process. Carcharoth 01:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Another alternative is to create the proposed article in your user space, say User:CBDunkerson/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher), reference it meticulously, and then people will be able to see whether the proposed article meets Wikipedia:Notability, without the undercurrent of personal attacks from each side that the AFD turned into. This should be about the article, not about the editors. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to Carcharoth, maybe consensus was wrong; it happens, but consensus is still consensus until a new one is formed. However there did also seem to be consensus that the subject of extreme longevity tracking was notable (sorry for confusing the history of the article), and it seems entirely proper for that article to include a bit about some of the trackers. The only thing we seem to disagree about is the spinoff-point, and I would suggest that in view of all the concerns about the hype, a cautious approach to spinoff would be appropriate here. I don't see any immediate risk of the extreme longevity tracking article bursting any time soon, but the main thing that article needs now is much more referencing of what's already there, as well as details of the trackers themselves. If the article establishes the notability of the field of research (which, being largely unreferenced, it doesn't yet do) and the notability of any the field's main practitioners is well established too, a spinoff would likely be uncontroversial. But the sources which CBD cited on Epstein at the AfD all seemed to involve trivial mentions of Epstein ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), so there is some way to go. So far, the consensus is that this doesn't amount to notability, and it's not process for the sake of process to ask that the consensus be respected, that both for Young and for Epstein, more substantial coverage is required.

AS to CBD's comment that Robert was right, I think that we are on very dangerous ground if we start accepting individuals as useful commentators on their own notability or that of their colleagues; the person concerned (or their immediate circle) is is usually ill-place to judge that, and they should be the last one to be asked about their own notability, except perhaps to identify possible sources.

I have been there myself, after a period of a few years when friends and colleagues seemed to find me everywhere on radio or TV, and every evening with friends was interrupted by press calls, and dinner guests got used to being used to a quick break while I did a brief phone interview. I had to remind them that this might just be a flash-in-the-pan, and that I might turn out to be be yet another one-minute wonder, like most people whose narrow niche provides the opportunity for the occasional soundbite. A few years on, it'd be a moot point; an article on me could cite dozens of quotes and mentions from easily-available reliable sources, and would note that putting my name into google brings me out ahead of a well-known writer of the same name, but so far as I am aware there are only two substantive articles in widely available reliable sources. Name recognition outside of the narrow niche is small, and if asked to judge my own notability, I'd say "weak delete"; but I wouldn't say it on wikipedia. That's something to be judged by folks with much more distance on the matter.

These things don't get personalised unless the subject chooses to personalise it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something to be said that this originally started over a dispute about whether Mary Ramsey Wood was '120' in 1908. To accept that, one would have to overturn the established world scientific and Western media consensus, which holds Sarah Knauss as the U.S. recordholder. It turned out that research discovered that she was 97 or 98 years old. Without meaning to re-ignite the issue, the question became 'on what authority' should we put that she was 'only' 97 or 98. I had argued that since Wikipolicy states that self-published sources are acceptable as references if from an established authority, questions then began about whether I was an established authority or no. It then followed, logically, to make a case that I did in fact know what I was talking about. But if I had just a user page, that wouldn't work. One thing about Wikipedia that I think makes it clearly superior, in some aspects, to a paper encyclopedia, is the use of 'wikilinks'. If one wants to find out more information, all one has to do is simply click on that link. Extraneous or off-topic material can be hidden, thus strengthening the main article's focus, while giving curious users the ability to 'click' on the link for more information.

Thus, I had made an auto-biography in response to requests for me to 'prove it'. However, it does make sense that one could use a redirect, so that if an article mentions me, it can redirect to 'extreme longevity trackers'. In a sense, given the material about GSU (not really appropriate for an article), it might be better to simply have a paragraph about each 'period' of extreme longevity tracking. This should include:

Macro-groups (Middle Ages, Intermediate Period, Modern Period)

Micro-groups (individual researchers)

William Thoms (1870's) Young (1905) Alexander Graham Bell (1918) Bowerman (1930's) A Ross Eckler Jr (1950's-1970's) Jean-Marie Robine (1980's-present) (Jeanne Calment case; individual focus) Louis Epstein (1990's-present) Robert Young (1990's-present) Filipe Prista Lucas (2000's-present)

There could be more; I have chosen the above as persons as being a good start. Due to COI, even if I were unblocked I now agree it would be better for a third party to write such an article, to avoid the 'appearance' of COI. I do note that I give credit in my database for each individual case; Mr Epstein does not.

Also, group efforts:

--Guinness World Records (began 1955) --Kannisto-Thatcher Database 1980's --Gerontology Research Group tracking began 1998 --Max Planck Institute tracking began 2000

Today, the three above groups are really the major players from a quasi-international perspective.

However, there is also the governments themselves:

Sweden (compulsory birth registration began 1749) England (compulsory birth registration began 1837)

Japan (began tracking centenarians 1963) Germany (began tracking centenarians 1990) USA (began tracking supercentenarians 2001, but only after death)

Thus, the list needs a three-part focus: individual research efforts; institutional/group research efforts; national research efforts

In fact, there is quite a bit of material that will probably be published in the next few years. In the interim, the article may be filled in, partially, by persons finding sources. Note there are even online books, such as:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/05.htm

Further, if we source the source we find even more:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/05r.htm

Interestingly, the Irish record, set in 1932, is the oldest record still in existence. Here is a detail:

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/08.htm

Now, I would agree that, if we were to maintain Wikipedia as top-quality, then we shouldn't 'branch out' articles unless/until the main page becomes unwieldy. It will take quite some time to put this article together in a comprehensive manner. It is true that, sometimes, pressure can lead to higher-quality standards. I just hope the same quality demands made of extreme longevity tracking would be applied to other areas in the Wikipedia. With apologies to Jeff Zaslow, his article isn't even sourced:Jeff Zaslow. However, it is the unscholarly fields, such as football, video games, and fictional TV characters, that perhaps need the greatest cleaning: for, if we honor a football player for scoring ONE career touchdown, what is the incentive to do better? And while some insisted that Ryan Shay's article not mention that he died at 'only' 28, can we find any other reason why someone like Keeley Dorsey would be notable? In retrospect, that article only survived deletion because I nominated it too close to the death event. It should be an unspoken policy to give 'recent deaths' at least a month to cool down before they are nominated for deletion.

To me, a person in an academic/scientific/scholarly field is ultimately notable if they do something that has never been done before, and/or that fits well into a 'timeline' of progress in that field. Perhaps it was my error to bring a few articles to fruition before they were ripe. Nonetheless, I do believe that Dr. Coles is notable as the first person in history to have set up a process of systematic supercentenarian autopsies (mentioned on CNN, Wall Street Journal, etc), for which he has discovered a new cause of death. This research has not yet been published due to small sample size. Thus, perhaps it was a mistake to bring 'inside knowledge' to the Wikipedia before it went through the proper channels. Nonetheless, its mentions in the press might argue that the 'cat is already out of the bag.'

Finally, again: I have been told that Dr. Coles really was a professor at UCLA and is now retired. It was an error, not a deliberate attempt to mislead. That an article needs to be cleaned up does not mean it needs to be deleted; only if the prospects of improvement are not there should the article be deleted (for example, Keeley Dorsey died at 19, so his career will not change; sad as his death was, I find it incredulous that 'one career touchdown'=notable.

Here is a recent Dr. Coles mini-bio:

http://www.agemed.org/default.asp?page=FacultyNov2007

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Supercentenarian Research Foundation Visiting Scholar, Department of Computer Science, UCLA Dr. Coles has been involved in various aspects of Age Management Medicine for over 40 years. He received his Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, his Masters Degree in Mathematics from The Carnegie Institute of Technology, and his Ph.D. in Systems and Communications Sciences from Carnegie-Mellon University. After attending medical school at Stanford University, he completed his Clinical Internship in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital. Dr. Coles has taught at a number of well-known universities throughout the country, including Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Miami, University of Maryland, UCLA, USC, Cal Tech, and UCSD. Dr. Coles is also the Director of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group, which he and three other scientists co-founded in the fall of 1990. The Group currently meets on a monthly basis at the UCLA Medical School to hear scientific experts present the latest information on either theoretical or clinical aspects of Age Management Medicine. Most recently Dr. Coles was a founding member and named Director of the Supercentenarian Foundation. Over the years the LA-GRG has grown to over 120 members with more than half having advanced degrees (MD's and PhD's).

If this is true, then Dr. Coles is a FORMER professor of quite a number of schools.

Let me also say this, regarding Rejuvenation Research: The former journal was called the "Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine". Many gerontologists didn't want to cite anything that said 'anti-aging', which has had a negative connotation due to groups such as this:

http://www.worldhealth.net/

Thus, it made sense that when the name was changed to Rejuvenation Research, suddenly it became acceptable to use this journal as a reference. Note there was also a change of editors from Michael Fossel to Aubrey de Grey. However, I do believe the 'name change' issue allowed for a better re-launch.

Note that the GRG group is a nonprofit organization, not just an 'informal discussion group'. In addition to those meeting at UCLA, membership worldwide is over 180, and a majority of these persons have advanced degrees.

I do think it is a commendable effort to check and re-check material to ensure that it is valid, as opposed to sloppily repeating mistakes made by others (for example, Dr. Coles 'was' a professor at UCLA, not 'is' a professor at UCLA). Nonetheless, one must be careful not to draw immediate conclusions without first giving those accused a chance to explain themselves. That the name 'anti-aging' is generally held as 'anathema' to citation by mainstream gerontology (as it smacks of quackery) helps to explain why a name change matters.

Note also that Aubrey de Grey has come out stronger as a result of this debate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grey_Technology_Review_controversy

A concentrated effort was made by several prominent biogerontologists and institutions to find flaws/holes in his ideas. When they were unable to expose him as a fraud, it followed that, perhaps, his ideas (if still just theory, not reality) at least had to be respected as something to discuss. In short, they could not prove fraud or hoax. Thus, his standing jumped significantly and so did citation-ability.

These two factors include 'external influences' that certainly were not or could not be manipulated by a group of 'insiders' alone. If there has been any malfeasance, I am not aware of it.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the desire to 'avoid controversy' by including information on Young in a related article, but it doesn't really fit in any of them. Possibly, some sort of 'List of longevity researchers' would work, but the fact is that most people in the field are not notable... making it a rather short list. Young IS notable because he is regularly cited by the media, has been the subject of independent articles, speaks on the issue, has contributed to books on the subject, et cetera. There are verifiable independent reliable sources galore. The deletion discussion was closed 'correctly' based on the consensus expressed... but that consensus focused on 'lack of sources', 'self promotion', and supposed 'misrepresentations' found through original research... all of which are correctable issues. The remedy actually recommended by deletion policy in such case is precisely what I am going to do... re-create the article in a form compliant with Wikipedia standards. I could start it in user space, but until moved that suggests a degree of 'ownership'... I'd rather put it out there and let others start improving it. Hopefully, the retention of the Stephen Coles article and the impending close of the Gerontology Research Group AfD, also seeming certain to retain the article, will have clearly demonstrated where the community stands on the notability of subjects with the level of reliable source verification which I intend to include on the re-created Young article. --CBD 12:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Coles AFD

An article I started (without Dr. Coles's knowledge) in March 2007 is now up for deletion. In response to some questions, first I'd like to clarify the relationship between Dr. Coles and myself:

A. I first contacted the www.grg.org website in 1999, and quickly became a group member. While at first the GRG tables were produced by Louis Epstein,over time, Dr. Coles has come to rely on me to be the go-to person in terms of deciding when to add a new case validation.

B. I live in Atlanta and Dr. Coles in the Los Angeles area. I met Dr. Coles at a Las Vegas meeting in Oct 2004 and in Inglewood, CA in Feb 2007.

C. Actually I know little about Dr. Coles's educational and employment history or the veracity of his resume. However, if one is to argue that his article meet 'verifiability', not necessarily 'truth', standards, then we can still find references such as this:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109454503323028876

Also, I believe the current boxed standard of 'academic' notability is being improperly applied. The old model of 'go to school, get a degree, publish papers, get cited,='important" fails on many levels. Quite aside from persons such as amateur astronomers, the compartmentalization of persons into separate fields belies the need for an interdisciplinary approach: hence the 'stereotype' of a 'jack of all trades, master of none.'

In the case of Dr. Coles, apparently he is a restless person, if he has taught at so many schools as are listed. Apparently bored with staying with one thing, Dr Coles has been involved in many endeavors, and has also built a network of connections that, yes, includes NASA. Note that Dr. Coles's first initial is "L", so LS Coles appears to be him (regarding the patent question).

Clearly, SOME groups/efforts have had little impact (i.e. folded). But the GRG is going strong 17 years after its founding. And of the original GRG co-founders, we see only one active in the group today, Stephen Coles. He has had a major impact on the field and thus has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, CNN, NY Times, and other national (not local) newsmedia such as CBS News:

https://leitl.org/docs/public_html/tt/msg34013.html

To give undue weight to a local UCLA Bruin news article is ignoring all of the above.

However, in regards to career:

Rather than 'staying within the lines' and playing the 'gaining academic tenure' game, maintaining a parochial existence as an average/not notable professor, Dr. Coles has instead managed to see a larger picture. Even if there were a 'Baron Munchhausen' tendency (and there's an article on him, too) we see Dr. Coles 'move the chains' (a football metaphor) from merely knowing the myths of aging, to actively tracking real supercentenarians, and from there to conducting autopsie. By taking things a step further, in the direction of autopsies which (as the above link mentions) have identified a new cause of death at the highest ages.

http://www.edmontonagingsymposium.com/files/eas/presentations/31-Stephen_Coles.ppt

Thus, is the above just an 'informal discussion' or is it research?

I don't know if this is referenced or not:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1196/annals.1297.090

The bottom line: IMO 'notability' need not be asserted through tenure but whether their career has had a significant impact on the field. The founding of the GRG and its sustained growth and development has been largely due to the efforts of Dr. Coles. Wide recognition by one's peers is evidently the case with Dr. Coles. Note also that Coles, despite being an advocate for the 'idea' of life extension, comes down squarely with the mainstream when it comes to quackery

or age misreporting:

Title:Antiaging Technology and Pseudoscience.Find More Like ThisAuthors:de Grey, Aubrey D. N. J. Gavrilov, Leonid Olshansky, S. Jay Coles, L. Stephen Cutler, Richard G. Fossel, Michael Harman, S. MitchellSource:Science; 4/26/2002, Vol. 296 Issue 5568, p656, 3/4pDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*AGING -- Prevention

• PSEUDOSCIENCEAbstract:Comments on the article 'The Quest to Reverse Time's Toll' in the 'Science' journal published on February 8, 2002. Efficacy of anti-aging medicines; Misuse of the term anti-aging; Emergence of pseudoscientific anti-aging industry.

Coles, L. Stephen1 scoles@ucla.eduSource:Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences; Jun2004, Vol. 59A Issue 6, p579-586, 8p, 1 chartDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*OLDER people

• AGING
• LIFE expectancy
• LIFE spans (Biology)
• LONGEVITY
• OLD ageAbstract:An international committee of demographers has created a carefully documented list of worldwide living supercentenarians (≥110 years old) that has been published by the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group on its web site and updated on a weekly basis for the past 6 years [see "snapshot" for the year 2003 in the Appendix]. What can be learned by studying this distinguished group of individuals? Also, what are the implications for understanding the fundamental biological limits to human longevity and maximum life span? Our conclusion: Although everyone agrees that average life expectancy has systematically advanced linearly over the last century, it is not realistic to expect that this pace can continue indefinitely. Our data suggest that, without the invention of some new unknown form of medical breakthrough, the Guinness Book of World Records benchmark established by French woman Jeanne Calment of 122 years, set back in 1997, will be exceedingly difficult to break in our lifetime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thus, Dr. Coles is considerably more conservative in lifespan predictions than many.

When Guinness World Records decided to cut 'longevity' records down to a single entry in 1991, the field dwindled to blog-report level. But by bringing supercentenarians in from the cold in 1998, he has done much to change the momentum in favor of both demographic and biologic investigation of supercentenarians. For this, his contributions are already immense.Ryoung122 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Epstein AFD

Comment:

you know a friend in real life (like Robert knows Louis Epstein), and everything you write about him is from memory and not sourced on the Internet. Therefore, a lot of the source for this article is Robert's brain, which fails substantial source on Wikipedia. Neal 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Actually Louis and I are not friends, we are rivals and 'acquaintances'.Ryoung122 05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah hah. ;-). Neal 12:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Rants and Indiscriminate Collection of Facts

The following is an excerpt from BrownHairedGirl's talk page.

Whoever you are, I have a simple suggestion for you: don't tell me, show me. Rather than posting a diatribe, why don't you go to the top righthand corner of this page, and click on the button to create an account ... and then start writing properly-referenced articles on people whose notability is clearly established (there are plenty of supercenteranrians whose biographies coukd be written to that standard). Those articles won't be deleted, and if you need help in doing that, you'll find plenty of people eager to help you along the way, and plenty of praise too. On the other hand, if you just came to rant because you think that wikipedia should include lots of self-promotional hype by people who think citing yourself is a reliable source, or that this is the place to write puff-pieces about themselves and their colleagues, then you are going to be disappointed, because this is an encyclopedia and not an indiscrimate collection of information, and it has standards to uphold. If those standards offend you, there are zillions of blogs, myspace pages, and other sources for you to enjoy. Have a nice day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

His response.

Disclosure: I have no idea who that was. I have admitted to using the '131' IP's and the '72' IP's and Aslan119. That's it. No additional Ryoung122 'sockpuppets'.

Greetings,

Whatever you might say about 'puff pieces', please note the accusation of 'indiscriminate collection of information' (if applied to www.grg.org) seems an overreach. The GRG tables are organized into a discriminate collection of information...in fact, that's what we're there for...to do the same thing you do, to maintain standards of 'verifiabiliy,' 'reliability,' and 'notability'...as well as scientific and factual accuracy. If someone claims to be 131 but turns out to be 81, like Noah Raby, then it is essential that we not represent him as '131'. True, the sources from a hundred years ago may have indiscriminately decided that he was '131', giving him the benefit of the doubt...that's not what we're about. The issue is, if we find 'recent evidence' that this charlatan from 100+ years ago was a fake, is the New York Times going to issue a retraction for a mistake made 100+ years ago? I doubt it.

Also, I hope you will stop with the 'linkspam' accusations. Checking the www.grg.org website, we find NO ads selling any products. The GRG is a 'nonprofit organization,' not an 'informal group'. The GRG has members worldwide, not just in Los Angeles. Do we say that Wikipedia has members only in St. Petersburg, FL? I think not. Do we say that because someone communicates with Wikipedia online, that they are not members of Wikipedia? Again, no. Therefore, to conclude that someone is 'not' a member of the GRG when they are a registered member, is simply unfair. More than half of the GRG members have at least a Master's degree(note: not me, I'm a second year grad student). Eventually the articles I created have either been improved by others, or deleted.

One more compromise issue: if a redirect were created from 'Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)' to 'extreme longevity tracking,' this would allow for those who may be reading a third-party article (such as Mary Wood) who want to know more information about why her age was revised from 120 to 97 to be able to read the article and decide for themselves what they do or do not believe.

Note that www.ancestry.com requires registration and a fee. The World's Oldest People webgroup requires registration but no fee.

Please note that the '110' stubs were created by mostly teenagers, not myself...I generally waited until someone reached the top 250 all time before creating an article (at age 112 1/2), and only if more information were available than what can be found in a list. I even supported the deletion of permastubs with no chance for expansion (for example, Yasu Nishiyama).

If we stop for a moment and eliminate the heated rhetoric, we should realize that both sides here are looking for the same thing...reliability, accuracy, verifiability. I do think someone who was 115 is more notable than a mere 110. It was my 'philosophy' that creating a 'wiki stub' lets people know that an article may need to exist. After that, the article can be either be improved or deleted. It is actually better to let others continue to edit, as this removes some of the COI charges. Eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI.Ryoung122 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

suggested compromise on supercentenarians

I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. I've left this as a note for BHG also.DGG (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, when BrownHairedGirl nominated the oldest woman in France in 2001-2002 for deletion, it was in the AfD talk page did I mention making a table for oldest person by country article. And it will be divided into gender too. Right now, I'm not too keen on anything with the 2nd oldest person of country. Remember, this will be far from reaching 193. China and India won't even be made. Neal (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Neal, I don't think that is the kind of 'compromise' we are looking for. First, we have the lists, but they have just very basic information: birth, death, age, race, sex. Nothing qualitative at all. The current 'Wikilink' system allows us to create articles for persons for whom there is more information.

DGG,

Before we can have a compromise, however, first we need to have me unblocked, and we need to be given a chance to self-clean the current articles. That is, if we created a page "French supercentenarians", we could create a list of the 90+ validated French persons who reached age 110 or greater. However, I'd still like to have separate articles for those aged 113+. We should try to convert the articles 'one nation at a time.'

For example, from (not most updated data, but Apr 12 2007), we have 90 French verified supercentenarians:

	VERIFIED SUPERCENTENARIAN CASES-							
	CHRONOLOGY	FRANCE						
 	as of Apr. 12, 2007	 	 	Age	 	 	 	place of
	Three or More Documents (three-stars)1							
nation	name	born	died	years	days	R	S	death
France	Marie-Virginie Duhem	Aug.  2, 1866	Apr. 25, 1978	111	266	W	F	France
France	Jean Teillet	Nov.  6, 1866	Mar. 17, 1977	110	131	W	M	France
France	Caroline Campistron	May 27, 1867	Mar.  2, 1978	110	279	W	F	France
France	Frederique Noel	June 19, 1868	Apr. 14, 1979	110	299	W	F	France
France	Augustine Teissier	Jan.  2, 1869	Mar.  8, 1981	112	65	W	F	France
France	Annette Faron	Feb. 15, 1869	May 12, 1979	110	86	W	F	France
France	Elisa Esnault	Dec. 10, 1870	Apr. 25, 1981	110	136	W	F	France
France	Eugenie Roux	Jan. 24, 1874	June 20, 1986	112	147	W	F	France
France	Jeanne Calment	Feb. 21, 1875	Aug.  4, 1997	122	164	W	F	France
France	Lydie Vellard	Mar. 18, 1875	Sept. 17, 1989	114	183	W	F	France
France	Marie-Louise Jeancard	Sept.  5, 1876	Nov. 25, 1988	112	81	W	F	France
France	Marie-Celine Maisonniaud	Oct. 26, 1876	June 17, 1987	110	234	W	F	France
France	Marie Mougin	June 25, 1877	Nov. 17, 1987	110	145	W	F	France
France	Josephine Choquet	June  6, 1878	Feb. 14, 1991	112	253	W	F	France
France	Mathilde Gauchou	Mar.  19, 1879	Dec. 30, 1990	111	286	W	F	France
France	Henri Perignon	Oct. 14, 1879	June 18, 1990	110	247	W	M	France
France	Eva Jourdan	Mar. 25,1880	May  6, 1992	112	42	W	F	France
Guadeloupe (FR)	Felicite Jandia	Feb. 12, 1881	Dec.  7, 1992	111	299	B	F	Guadeloupe (FR)
France	Pauline Chabanny	Aug. 20, 1881	Aug. 13, 1994	112	358	W	f	France
France	Marie-Louise Antelme	Dec. 28, 1881	Feb. 19, 1992	110	53	W	F	France
France	Maria-Anna Higelin	Nov. 18, 1882	Mar. 21, 1994	111	123	W	F	France
France	Juliette Baudouin	Feb. 19, 1883	Aug. 24, 1993	110	186	W	F	France
France	Marthe Bellecour	Apr. 18, 1883	Aug.  4, 1993	110	108	W	F	France
France	Marguerite Petit	July  3, 1883	Dec. 21, 1995	112	171	W	F	France
France	Marie Bouvier	Nov. 26, 1883	Dec. 30, 1993	110	34	W	F	France
France	name withheld	Jan.  9,  1884	Feb. 21, 1994	110	43	W	F	France
France	Zoe Verot	Feb. 15, 1884	Jan.  4, 1996	111	323	W	F	France
France	Celestine Colombeau	Feb. 17, 1884	May  9, 1996	112	82	W	F	France
France	Sophie Dernoncourt	May  9, 1884	June  7, 1994	110	29	W	F	France
France	Nouria Hutin	July 12, 1884	Aug. 23, 1994	110	42	W	F	France
Algeria (FR)	Emile Fourcade	July 29, 1884	Dec. 29, 1995	111	153	W	M	France
France	Bernard Delhom	July  9, 1885	Feb.  7, 1996	110	213	W	M	France
Spain	Elisa Cubells	Aug. 20, 1885	Nov.  16, 1995	110	88	W	F	France
France	Marie-Helene Chanteperdrix	Mar.  5, 1886	Mar.  9, 1998	112	4	W	F	France
France	Jeanne Dumaine	Mar. 19, 1886	Jan.  3, 1999	112	290	W	F	France
France	Marie Bremont	Apr. 25, 1886	June 6, 2001	115	42	W	F	France
Guadeloupe (FR)	Luce Maced	May  2, 1886	Feb. 25, 2000	113	299	B?	F	Martinique (FR)
France	Jeanne Colas	June  9, 1886	Oct. 15, 1998	112	128	W	F	France
France	Maria Bigue	Sept. 10, 1886	Mar. 12, 1998	111	183	W	F	France
France	Maria Laborie	Apr. 26, 1887	Nov. 22, 1997	110	210	W	F	France
France	Henriette Megevand	June 24, 1887	Jan.  7, 1999	111	197	W	F	France
France	Melanie Dormois	July  8, 1887	Dec. 13, 1997	110	158	W	F	France
France	Alexandrine Renaud	Sept.  8, 1887	Jan. 18, 1998	110	132	W	F	France
France	Berthe Sadron	Feb. 18, 1888	Feb. 27, 1999	111	9	W	F	France
France	Louise Mallet	Mar.  8, 1888	Mar.  9, 2000	112	1	W	F	France
France	Marie-Louise Lambert	Apr.  9, 1888	Dec. 11, 1999	111	246	W	F	France
France	Juliette Merceron	Apr. 23, 1888	Sept. 16, 1998	110	146	W	F	France
France	Marie Fastayre	May 17, 1888	May 30, 1998	110	13	W	F	France
France	Marie-Louise Thurneyssen	Aug. 21, 1888	June 27, 1999	110	310	W	F	France
France	Germaine Haye	Oct. 10, 1888	Apr. 18, 2002	113	190	W	F	France
France	Marthe Denis	Dec.  7, 1888	May 20, 1999	110	164	W	F	France
France	Jeanne Violette	Jan. 12, 1889	Nov. 27, 1999	110	319	W	F	France
France	Marie-Isabelle Tuffal	Jan. 14, 1889	Nov. 12, 1999	110	302	W	F	France
France	Elizabeth Seube	Apr.  8, 1889	Mar.  6, 2000	110	333	W	F	France
France	Marie Combeleran	June  8, 1889	May 23, 2001	111	349	W	F	France
France	Anna Boulet	June 28, 1889	Oct. 19, 1999	110	113	W	F	France
France	Anne-Marie Hemery	July 25, 1889	Mar.  6, 2000	110	225	W	F	France
France	Blanche Marie Grosdidier	Oct.  3, 1889	Oct. 10, 2001	112	7	W	F	France
France	Clothilde Roy	Oct. 23, 1889	Oct. 13, 2001	111	355	W	F	France
France	Adeline Soboul	Feb.  8, 1890	Mar.  6, 2000	110	27	W	F	France
France	Alexis Daigneau	Aug.  4, 1890	Apr.  3, 2001	110	242	W	M	France
France	Anne Primout	Oct.  5, 1890	Mar. 26, 2005	114	172	W	F	France
France	Jeanne Samson	Nov.  5, 1890	Dec.  4, 2000	110	29	W	F	France
France	Pauline Sevaille	Nov. 20, 1890	Aug. 29, 2002	111	282	W	F	France
France	Marguerite Bellion	Feb. 12, 1891	Jan. 29, 2002	110	351	W	F	France
France	Yvonne Bory	Mar. 14, 1891	Aug.  7, 2003	112	146	W	F	France
France	Camille Loiseau	Feb. 13, 1892	Aug. 12, 2006	114	180	W	F	France
France	Jeannette Gayraud	May 12, 1892	Mar. 31, 2004	111	324	W	F	France
Reunion (France)	Julia Sinedia-Cazour	July 12, 1892	Oct.  6, 2005	113	86	B	F	Reunion (France)
France	Germaine Stadler	Mar. 29, 1893	Feb. 14, 2005	111	322	W	F	France
France	Marthe Ardouin-Schmid	July 12, 1893	Aug. 13, 2003	110	32	W	F	France
France	Lucie Pere-Pucheu	Aug. 13, 1893	Apr. 6, 2006	112	236	W	F	France
France	Marthe Gojon	Nov.  1, 1893	Nov. 28, 2004	111	27	W	F	France
France	Marie-Simone Capony	Mar. 14, 1894		113*		W	F	lives in France
France	Marie Mornet	Apr.  4, 1894	Jan.  5, 2007	112	276	W	F	France
France	Marie-Louise Bernede	Apr.  6, 1894	Dec. 11, 2005	111	249	W	F	France
France	Clementine Solignac	Sept.  7, 1894		112*		W	F	lives in France
France	Marie Vigne-Ben Cimon	Sept. 23, 1894	Dec.  7, 2004	110	75	W	F	France
France	Agnes Fagoo	Dec. 19, 1894	Apr. 12, 2007	112	114	W	F	France
France	Maurice Floquet	Dec. 25, 1894	Nov. 10, 2006	111	320	W	M	France
Guadeloupe (FR)	Mathilde Octavie Tafna	Mar. 16, 1895		112*		B?	F	lives in Guadeloupe
Germany (Alsace)	Catherine Trompeter	Mar. 26, 1895	Nov. 18, 2006	111	237	W	F	France (Alsace)
France	Constance Cariou	May  8, 1895		111*		W	F	lives in France
New Caledonia (FR)	Marie-Louise L'Hullier	June 26, 1895		111*		W	F	lives in New Caledonia (FR)
France	Mathilde Rouene	Aug. 13, 1895	May 20, 2006	110	280	W	F	France
France	Jeanne Vuillemot	Sept. 23, 1895	Jan.  3, 2006	110	102	W	F	France
France	Madeleine Delmotte	Apr. 20, 1896	Mar. 31, 2007	110	345	W	F	France
France	Aime Avignon	Feb.  2, 1897		110*		W	M	lives in France
	emigrant cases							
France	Marie-Rose Mueller	Sept. 20, 1896		110*		W	F	lives in U.S. (CT)
Germany (Alsace)	Jeanne Rose Meyer Zettel	Dec.  6, 1896	Jan. 12, 2007	110	37	W	F	Italy

Yet checking Wikipedia, there are about 21 French supercentenarians with separate articles. I don't support a complete merge. I'd favor making the French list, bolding the titleholders, and keeping articles for those whom at least a paragraph or two can be written. I would support merging those, such as Felicite Jandia, for whom not much info. is given. Note if we made one 'master' French supercentenarian article, kept the ten most interesting bios, and merged 11, we'd have:21 bios+one main article=22minus11merges=11 articles. Scientifically, we need a multidisciplinary approach that contributes both quantitative and qualitative data. Not all people respond to mere lists, and mere lists do nothing to explain how a person lived their life and managed to live to 113, which is the main rationale for an article about them...human interest. Note the side benefits also come when small towns and villages not normally heard of are given their '15 minutes of fame'...places like New Sharon, Maine, birthplace of Fred Hale.

That is the type of compromise I'm looking for...pruning, not beheading. There is a difference. Ryoung122 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, so you're copying/pasting from MicroSoft Excel. The table actually looks neat in the edit page (that's the time to view it). Let me think about making it look neat in the next few minutes. Neal (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Okay, fixed! Now it looks neat. Neal (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

I just got done talking with Robert Young on the phone. What he proposed for compromise is the table above. It's a supercentenarian by country list. However, we haven't decided whether we want the list to be like that (all gender), or to divide the males and females. Obviously, it will be formatted for Wikipedia.

What I propose (well I don't propose anything, but technically, wouldn't mind) is something below. And yes, both tables are out dated. Neal (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

The oldest woman in France.

Name	From	To	Age	Death Age	Born
Marie-Ernestine Compain		September 4, 1975		109 years 316 days	October 23, 1865
Marie-Virginie Duhem *	September 4, 1975	April 25, 1978		111 years 266 days	August 2, 1866
Frederique Noël	April 25, 1978	April 14, 1979		110 years 299 days	June 19, 1868
Augustine Tessier *	April 14, 1979	March 8, 1981		112 years 65 days	January 2, 1869
Elisa Esnault	March 8, 1981	April 25, 1981		110 years 136 days	December 10, 1870
Eugenie Roux	April 25, 1981	June 20, 1986		112 years 147 days	January 24, 1874
Jeanne Louise Calment	June 20, 1986	August 4, 1997 10:45 A.M.		122 years 164 days 15 hours ~45 minutes	February 21, 1875 ~7:00 A.M.
Marie-Helene Chanteperdrix	August 4, 1997 10:45 A.M.	March 9, 1998		112 years 4 days	March 5, 1886
Jeanne Dumaine	March 9, 1998	January 3, 1999		112 years 290 days	March 19, 1886
Marie Brémont	January 3, 1999	June 6, 2001		115 years 42 days	April 25, 1886
Germaine Haye	June 6, 2001	April 18, 2002		113 years 190 days	October 10, 1888
Anne Primout	April 18, 2002	March 26, 2005		114 years 172 days	October 5, 1890
Camille Loiseau	March 26, 2005	August 12, 2006		114 years 180 days	February 13, 1892
Marie-Simone Capony	August 12, 2006				March 14, 1894

The oldest man in France.

Name	From	To	Age	Death Age	Born
Henri Perignon *		June 18, 1990		110 years 247 days	October 14, 1879
Emile Fourcade	June 18, 1990?	December 29, 1995		111 years 153 days	July 29, 1884
Bernard Delhom	December 29, 1995	February 7, 1996		110 years 213 days	July 9, 1885
Theophane Rifosta	February 7, 1996?	June 16, 1999		109 years 283 days	September 6, 1889
Alexis Daigneau	June 16, 1999	April 3, 2001		110 years 242 days	August 4, 1890
Raymond Abescat	April 3, 2001?	August 25, 2001		109 years 349 days	September 10, 1891
Maurice Floquet	August 25, 2001	November 10, 2006		111 years 320 days	December 25, 1894
Aime Avignon	November 10, 2006				February 2, 1897

Neal (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

'List' of French supercentenarians

Hmmn, this is not the sort of 'compromise' I call a compromise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Loiseau#Camille_Loiseau

Where is the discussion first? I see none. Also, it's not really a 'list' either which is a major point of contention. Considering there are 90 French supercentenarian cases, it does not appear that having a 'table/list' of the 90, with separate, Wikilinked articles for about 10 or even 20 of them, is really over-doing it. Also, this appears to be a sneaky attempt to get around the AFD process, which most of the articles passed even though I am still blocked and Bart and several others (Stan Primmer, Cjeales) were blocked as well.

Do we see anyone merging the Irish politician or British baron permastubs or Catholic bishops or college football players into a single list, at least by district or by title or by team? I think not. Therefore, to insist that these articles be sandwiched into one is clearly against consensus, formatting, and tradition on Wikipedia. It also fails to adequately balance the quantitative and qualitative approaches to the information, creating a mish-mash which is neither. For example, a 'list of the 100 oldest persons' neatly organizes everyone, equally, into a quantitative approach. Creating articles that are wikilinked from the main page for the individuals allows for a qualitative approach that does not take away from the main-page focus or quantitative presentation. We also see complaints in the past about articles 'being too long'. Thus, this most recent switch smacks of one person imposing her will while violating consensus, formatting, and tradition on Wikipedia. Offers of 'compromise' are just that, but we don't see the other side offering any attempt at compromise whatsoever. Considering the number of supercentenarian articles is far smaller than, say, the number of high schools in the USA, it beggars belief that one person should insist on these forced mergers, without any attempt at consensus-building or discussion before these efforts were taken.Ryoung122 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course saving the info. is a 'compromise', but the information is NOT being organized in a scientific fashion (by birthdate, or by age) or in an administrative fashion (by alphabetical order). This could get ugly, especially for the 'American' page, and forgets that a 'list of' should have a list of everyone (I have over 500 American supercentenarians) and that we need a quantitative list, not a 'qualitative list' which is any oxymoron. Nonetheless, I shall wait to see what becomes of all this. Note also that those articles that meet 'notability' guidelines by themselves should stand alone.Ryoung122 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that some of my concerns have been lifted...the information is being rearranged by date of birth. However, in the future we do need to add a 'quantitative list' section to go with the 'qualitative list' section, that clearly establishes the succession of titleholders (see Neal's proposal in section above this one).Ryoung122 20:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed at BrownHairedGirl's effort. She said somewhere she wasn't even interested in supercentenarians. Well,, Robert, I guess that article is a start. I've added some stuff to the talk page there. Neal (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Ok, we can 'compromise' here. I suggest that FIRST you add a 'quantitative list' (like the one above). I note that 'national longevity recordholders' compromised by having both a quantitative list and a qualitative list. I would support re-splitting out Camille Loiseau but I agree that it may not be worth arguing over someone like Anne Pere-Pucheu. Thus, perhaps we can turn BHG's massive efforts into something positive. The pages as currently organized need work. So, happy editing! Remember two points:

A. A quantitative list B. We can re-split out those who take up more than one paragraph (i.e. Camille Loiseau, Anne Primout). I would support re-splitting out anyone over 113 and for whom sufficient info. to establish WP:BIO is available. That seems like a compromise to me. Ryoung122 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous Merging

Greetings,

The 'merging' offer was intended for those stubs, such as Jean Teillet, where establishing separate 'notability' may be difficult, impossible, or undesirable. It was never intended to merge for a 'world's oldest person':

19:33, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Marthe Augustine Mesange Lemaitre Brémont‎ (←Redirected page to List of French supercentenarians#Marie Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:33, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Bremont‎ (←Redirected page to List of French supercentenarians#Marie Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marie Brémont‎ (notability not established per WP:BIO, merged to List of French supercentenarians#Marie_Br.C3.A9mont) (top) 19:32, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) List of French supercentenarians‎ (→Marie Brémont - merge overly short paras) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (hist) (diff) List of French supercentenarians‎ (→Marie Brémont - merge from Marie Brémont)

I'm quite sure that, even if I remain blocked and not a single person from my web group chimed in, that a separate, standalone article for Marie Bremont would easily pass AFD and that the result would be 'keep', not 'merge'. However, we have seen that once again, user BHG insists on having her own way on a subject that she claims to not care about.

Now, I don't care too much for short permastubs for barons, peerages, etc...why have separate articles for each new person? Whether representatives from district 13 or players for a college football program, however, we don't see ANY other field insist on merging all the players or peers or representatives into one article. This new campaign is, once again, going way, way too far and NOT in the spirit of compromise that had been offered.Ryoung122 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Young hasn't been checking before making sweeping assertions. He doesn't seem to have noticed that, for example, a large part of the work of User:Carcharoth's work at WikiProject Middle-earth is merging articles, or that the same thing is being systematically done within the baronets project, or that I have strenuously argued for such mergers (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Lauder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baronetcies#Time_for_a_systematic_cleanup).

Young is still trying to seek an exemption for supercentenarians from WP:BIO, or at least for some of them. I have absolutely no doubt that it in the current climate of simplifying notability guideines, that crating any further proposal for automatic presumption notability would go down like a lead balloon, just as happened to WP:NOBLE (rightly, in my view). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you are replying to Young while he is blocked and cannot edit the page (because you protected it). If you are going to respond to points he has made (ie. discuss the matter), then at least have the courtesy to unprotect the page so he can reply. Otherwise you are just lecturing to a gagged person. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you re-read my comment, you will see that I was not replying to Young. I was correcting the record for the benefit of other editors who might have been misled.

Carcharoth, I'm amazed too that your main concern here seems to be that a blocked disruprive editor should not be impeded from holding discussions on wikipedia. Have you considered, for example, to what extent Young has had the courtesy to retract the attacks against me which he has been circulating about me on his mailing list, and which he has blocked me from reading directly, so that I know about them only because they have been forwarded by others? Or that he is continuing to ask other editors to edit on his behalf, as confirmed today by the references to phone conversations in deletion review? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the off-wiki harassment was so bad. I sympathise with you there, but I do tend to restrict myself to what happens on-wiki. I find that once people start getting involved in what is happening off-wiki, it opens up a whole new can of worms - part of the reason I choose not to do that. It is also harder to verify as well, which is why I find looking at on-wiki behaviour is best - and I agree, the on-wiki behaviour was not acceptable. But that merited a warning and a long block, in my opinion, not an indefinite block. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

This page has been repeatedly used the blocked editor Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue discussing the content of wikipedia. The purpose of allowing a blocked editor to post to their talk page is to make it easier for them to request an unblock, not to allow them to continue to converse as before.

I have therefore protected the page so that only administrators can edit it. I suggest that all Young's contributions since his block should be archived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think some of the material posted here is useful and could be used in articles. I intend to do this, at the same time double-checking what has been provided. Could you please unblock so Robert can continue using this talk page? I'm already uneasy at the prospect of forcing people to discuss articles on their talk pages. If the discussion is calm and coherent, as it has been here for the past few days, why not just unblock him? Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, are you forgetting that Young was blocked for widespread COI, for votestacking, for massive disruption and a long series of personal attacks? If Young wants to request unblocking he can so by email, but the block was for a serious pattern of disruption, and should not be overturned lightly, particularly in view of the fact that he systematically used sockpuppets to evade the block and recruited as many meatpuppets as he could. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep asking me if I've forgotten this that and the other, or if I'm overlooking something. Could you assume good faith and not keep asking if I've forgotten things? I've been following this as closely as you have, if not more so, and I disagree with large parts of what Ryoung122 has done. The trouble is that I also disagree with parts of how this has been handled. What I disagreed with, from the very beginning, was the immediate jump to 'indefinite' on what was only his second block and the first concerning these incidents. Another consequence of the block was a failure to allow anyone else to work with him. I was just starting to engage in what might have been productive discussion, maybe even a mentoring, when the block was put in place. And before you ask, yes, I agree the behaviour was unacceptable and the block was justified. It is really only the length that I'm concerned about. People responded to my concerns with a "it's not really indefinite - it can be undone", but this doesn't give the blocked editor any idea of how long they should wait before calming down, seeing the error of their ways, and requesting an unblock. Theoretically it could be straight away, but the problem is that indefinite blocks can end up as defacto bans without community discussion. If you think there should be a long block (eg. a year), or a ban, then I suggest that ArbCom or a community discussion is the right route. From what I can see, indefinite blocks are usually handed out to trolling throwaway accounts, or when a serious editor has escalated through a series of blocks and shown no signs of changing their behaviour. Neither is the case here. I'm glad to see, at least, that you have remembered to put the "can request unblock by e-mail" information on the page, even if that is nearly two days after you protected the page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How long should the person wait? I suggest that Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#Abuse_of_the_unblocking_process is relevant on that point, as wella s wrt to the abuse of the talk page for substantive discussion.

I am particularly struck by the final para, which begins "Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding". Young doesn't seem to have gained much understanding: he's still arguing for exemptions to the notability guidelines; the best he can say on COI is "eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI", rather than promising to stop; he's still trying to evade the block by phoning other editors and asking them to edit for him. This leopard hasn't changed his spots, he's just toned down his on-wiki rhetoric.

And I'm sorry if you feel I'm not assuming good faith, but assuming forgetfulness seemed to me like a AGF way of noting that the rush to bring him back into the fold seems very very odd in view of Young's behaviour. I have never before seen a case of some who repeatedly evaded blocks and recruited having an admin who is apparently trying to do everything possible to bring them back. It's very very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some other relevant quotes from WP:AAB might be: "so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia, whilst the block is active" and "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." What I feel here is that Robert Young did not get enough warning that an indefinite block was coming, that he was not warned that the talk page would be protected, that the situation could have been handled better. I'll repeat - I felt I was starting to get somewhere before the block was put in place - that is my motivation here, and a faint hope of maybe demonstrating to you (and others) that there is a different way to handle things. Your comments about me trying to do "everything possible to bring them back" and this being "very very odd" are (again) mischaracterizing what is happening here. Read what I wrote and what you wrote in reply. You didn't respond at all to what I said about the length of the block. Now look at what Moondyne wrote below: "On the positive side, I do think he could be a good editor based on his past contributions and Carcharoth's offer of mentorship, which is both generous and brave, may achieve a good outcome. I think an indefinite block is too long but "a block of a week or a month" is way too short. Perhaps a three month block after which he agrees to a three month probationary period during which he cannot edit anything to do with longevity issues." - that is what is called a compromise. That would allay my concerns that an indefinite block is excessive here. I'm not "rushing to bring him back into the fold", but I am arguing for a definite block length to be decided on, as indefinite is too vague in a case like this. So how about it? Would Moondyne's proposal be acceptable to you? Would you consider unprotecting the page to see if Robert Young wants to say anything? Oh, and about the "I have never before seen" bit - the encyclopedia has been around a lot longer than either of us have been editing it, and is a lot bigger than most people realise, so I for one never assume that I've seen everything there is to see around here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

There was some discussion on my talk page (see User talk:Carcharoth#Mentoring?) about possible mentoring. I will have time over the next few days to consider this. I am proposing to unprotect the talk page so Robert can discuss this with me, and then possibly file an unblock request. Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And to allay any concerns, my first proposal will be that Robert takes a short break to allow the above material to be assessed, digested and incorporated by uninvolved editors, thus avoiding COI concerns. Once that has been done, I propose unblocking to allow Robert to participate in discussions about the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, strong oppose. WP:BLOCK says that people who evade a block through sockpuppetry have their blocks extended, not shortened. Surely those who, like Young, set out to try to recruit hordes of meatpuppets as well as using a mailing list to broadcast a long series dozens of personal attacks on wikipedia editors should not be rewarded by having their blocks lifted? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you opposing the unblock or the mentoring? If you look at the block log, you will see that there was one block of 31 hours in August 2006, followed by an indefinite block in November 2007. Are you saying you want to extend the indefinite block to something more than indefinite? I still maintain that a block of a week or a month would have been sufficient, and after that block expired we could have seen whether the behaviour had changed. Let me ask you a frank question - what would it take for you to agree to an unblock (though really I should be asking Maxim this), and if you feel you could never agree to an unblock, can I ask that you start a formal process for a community ban (or an Arbcom case) to get wider input on this?

As for lifting the block, the lifting of a block is not a reward to the editor (as you should know), but should be done with consideration to the benefits to the encyclopedia. You may disagree, but I think that Robert's contributions here on the talk page show that he has the knowledge and motivation to, with the appropriate help and guidance, produce some good overview articles on the subject. Can you respect my view on that, even if you disagree with it?

Now, the good content (from above) is the following plan for an article:

"Macro-groups (Middle Ages, Intermediate Period, Modern Period); Micro-groups (individual researchers); William Thoms (1870's) Young (1905) Alexander Graham Bell (1918) Bowerman (1930's) A Ross Eckler Jr (1950's-1970's) Jean-Marie Robine (1980's-present) (Jeanne Calment case; individual focus) Louis Epstein (1990's-present) Robert Young (1990's-present) Filipe Prista Lucas (2000's-present); There could be more; I have chosen the above as persons as being a good start. Due to COI, even if I were unblocked I now agree it would be better for a third party to write such an article, to avoid the 'appearance' of COI. I do note that I give credit in my database for each individual case; Mr Epstein does not. Also, group efforts: --Guinness World Records (began 1955) --Kannisto-Thatcher Database 1980's --Gerontology Research Group tracking began 1998 --Max Planck Institute tracking began 2000; Today, the three above groups are really the major players from a quasi-international perspective. However, there is also the governments themselves: Sweden (compulsory birth registration began 1749) England (compulsory birth registration began 1837); Japan (began tracking centenarians 1963) Germany (began tracking centenarians 1990) USA (began tracking supercentenarians 2001, but only after death). Thus, the list needs a three-part focus: individual research efforts; institutional/group research efforts; national research efforts"

And yes, I do realise this is not a perfect plan, and care has to be taken to avoid original research, but again, I ask you to respect my opinion on this and not try and enforce your opinion before an attempt has been made to write such an article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If he is ever unblocked, then I definitely agree that mentoring is needed. Careful mentoring.

But to get unblocked, I will continue to argue that he needs to demonstrate a clear understanding of why he was blocked, and to give unequivocal assurances that he won't repeat that stuff. In other words that he will learn how to use talkpages properly, that he will not edit any articles related to himself or his colleagues, that he will stop adding his own publications as sources to wikipedia articles, that he will stop using wikipedia to publish more of his original research, that he will not canvass or votestack discussions, that he will stop making malicious and unfounded allegations of votestacking by others, that he will not use sockpuppets, that he understands that if blocked he should not ask other editors to edit on his behalf, and that he understands that AfD discussions on the notability of articles are a routine part of wikipedia maintenance rather than grounds for calling on hundreds of people to abuse wikipedia admin.

I know that's a long list, but it's simply what every other wikipedia editor has to abide by. I have been quite shocked by the harassment to which I have been subjected by Young (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment). I will not repost here everything which has been said, and I don't even have all if it because my sources have deliberately witheld from me the worst of it, but if the long history of misconduct is brushed aside simply because Young has an idea for an article, I will consider taking out an arbcom case or whatever.

However, I ask you to consider whether it is fair to ask me, as the victim of the harassment, to have to go through all the prolonged hassle of an arbcom, on top of what has been done. It's bad enough to have been subjected to barrage, but an arbcom on top if it all seems like too much.

I have already considered simply quitting wikipedia and scrambling access to my accounts (this one plus BHGbot), simply because of the harassment. I don't think that I should have to do that, but if wikipedia is to be an environment where a systematic harasser has such a determined advocate that I have to constantly choose between sodding off or reminding him of what's going on, then I have to wonder what's the right course. I'm not a quitter, and I have in my time told more than one eejit who put a gun to my head to get lost and grow up, and I have lived at various points in dangerous circumstances, with several death threats and one actual arson attack on my home ... but I now choose a quieter life.

Editing wikipedia has had its good points and its bad points, but I have stuck with it because overall it has been fun and I have enjoyed it, and as a result I have had the chance to work with some great people, with a huge variety of approaches. But if it's going to be a place where a man can set about his sort of sustained harassment of a woman, I'll have to wonder whether I'm in the right place. I can see now why so many women on wikipedia choose gender-neutral usernames and take care not to reveal their gender. I used to think that was unnecessary, that wikipedia was a civilised enough place that I didn't have to adopt that sort of gender-neutral pseudonyms which I use elsewhere, but I'm now beginning to think that I made a very big mistake in that respect.

But if all the history of harassment is set aside just because the harasser has an idea for an article which interests an admin, I'll have conclude that I was wrong, and take time to consider what I do next. Sometimes, it's best to accept that one is in a places which it is best to get out of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I wasn't aware of the full extent of off-wiki harassment. I would note however that off-wiki harassment is best handled through systems like Arbcom, because they can handle more extensive evidence that often can't, or shouldn't, be posted on-wiki. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122's recent behaviour is at the high end of bad and a strong signal needs to be sent that creating sockpuppets, mobilising meatpuppets and hurling personal attacks at those he sees as his opponents is not the way things are done. Similarly, he needs to improve on his communication skills in that copy-pasting reams of text and rants into talk pages does not help him get his message across. Also, I have yet to see a serious statement of contrition or apology or how he would behave in respect of WP policies if he was eventually unblocked (other than: "eventually if unblocked I will be more cautious to avoid the appearance of COI", which means very little).

On the positive side, I do think he could be a good editor based on his past contributions and Carcharoth's offer of mentorship, which is both generous and brave, may achieve a good outcome. I think an indefinite block is too long but "a block of a week or a month" is way too short. Perhaps a three month block after which he agrees to a three month probationary period during which he cannot edit anything to do with longevity issues. I've seen this work before and it forces the blockee to open their eyes to other parts of WP and a new set of contributors. People do sometimes deserve a second chance but they do also need to understand that they are not bigger than our policies. But the details of such an arrangement must only be considered AFTER a clear and unambiguous statement by Ryoung of how he sees himself editing in the future and AFTER the community has considered that such assurances are sufficient. —Moondyne 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like the first step is to unprotect the talk page and see what Robert Young has to say. I am glad that at least one other person agrees with me that an indefinite block is excessive. BrownHairedGirl, I suggest you archive the talk page stuff before this latest stuff, and leave a clear message to Robert Young detailing what is required (part of what you wrote above would be appropriate). Or you can ask someone else to undo your protection, if you prefer. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, after reading BHG's description of the extent of the off-wiki harassment I am considering retracting my suggestion. I've sent her an email regarding this. In the meantime I see no urgency in unprotecting this page. RY can email a statement to any of the admins who can post it here, or he could post here as an IP with an email verification to an admin. —Moondyne 03:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having considered the email below it is my view is that the indefinite block should stay. Robert, you had a lifeline handed to you but you responded with the same old rhetoric about YOU being attacked and victimised and conveniently forgetting it was YOU that started this whole sorry saga because it was YOU who responded to questions of notability and COI on the Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) article with personal attacks and sockpuppets. Your email shows me you've learnt nothing new regarding Wikipedia policies as a result of your break and that if you returned you would continue your disruption. I suggest that you go away for several months and if after that you think you've seen the light, send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting an unblock. —Moondyne 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is where the problem arises. I read Robert's e-mail that you posted below, and I see the points you are making, but I can see the other side as well. To be frank, my response to an e-mail like the one below would have been to unblock and reblock for a month to give the cooling off period that Robert has requested. I think the point that is being forgotten here is that a block can be re-imposed with little trouble if Robert starts making trouble after that block expires. He has shown contrition and regret. Maybe not as much as some people would like, and he is still upset about some things, but that still doesn't equate to an indefinite block in my view. It feels like indefinite block are being used to extract apologies and reform, when apologies and reform should come naturally through learning and experience (which can only happen if someone is unblocked). You can't really tell whether someone has reformed until you unblock them and see how they act. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Robert has been around here plenty long enough to know policy. His email showed me he still does not understand it and continues to hold the view that there's some sort of vendetta against him and that its not his fault he is where he is. Robert needs an indefinite amount of time off and when he feels the time is right for him to make a new start, come back and offer evidence of wanting to make an new start according to the way everyone else here contributes. To unblock and reblock for a month just invites him to come back with his current state of mind. —Moondyne 23:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to leave this for now, but I will start a general discussion at WP:AN about how indefinite blocks are being used. I wasn't aware that indefinite blocks were now being used at the whim of blocking admins to defer a final decision until some undefined future moment. I think it makes more sense to make a decision on the length of a block now. One possibility I think is that as the project gets bigger, people don't feel they are able to come back and check up on behaviour after a block has expired, and either are unsure that later admins will correctly handle a reoccurrence of the behaviour, or think that an indefinite block is an easier option that deciding on the length of a block. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Else we're just talking in circles. —Moondyne 00:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted my general thoughts at WP:AN. I'd also like to thank you specifically, as things got a lot easier around here once you turned up. I tend to disagree rather a lot with BHG for some reason. If you are reading this, BHG, it's nothing personal. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock requests may be made by email

Because this page is protected, it is no longer possible for Young to make an unblock request here.

I am posting this notice per WP:BLOCK so that Young knows that an unblock request made made by email to the Unblock-en-l mailing list.

The email address for posting to the list is: unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Email received from Robert Young

Formatting (bolding) preserved as received.

Dear Moondyne,

I do not wish to request 'unblocking' my edits privileges at this time. I do believe a period of 'cooling off' would be best for everyone. Perhaps unblocking my talk page and user page would be a small gesture towards reconciliation. I do hope to one day return to Wikipedia.

However, I would ask that the latest comments added by BHG be removed. The accusations and insinuations made against me are completely false and inflammatory. Disagreements in policy and whether articles should be deleted or kept should never be rewritten so as to compare them with much more serious issues, such as threats of violence or sexual harassment. The disputes were never about gender; they were about AGE...and whether it was important to study and catalog the world's oldest people, including on Wikipedia. The insinuations and accusations which compared defending articles for deletion to overt threats of violence and sexual harassment are 100% false and defamatory. The fact that your mind may have been changed due to such false charges is simply another example of the recent 'railroading' of me out of Wikipedia. I have NOT engaged in a campaign of 'offsite harassment'. Rather, I have defended myself and others from attacks by BHG where appropriate. A check of the records (Nov 11 2007, BHG's user contribs and talk page) shows I had attempted reconciliation and compromise several times, even going so far as to ask 'will this make you happy'. The response was for her to launch WP:POINT attacks on virtually every article of interest to me and my colleagues. I was blocked for requesting an ANI...how ironic. I thought that would solve a problem, not make it bigger.

I would look forward to working with Charcaroth, but to me the false accusations and unfair blocking of my talk page by the same person (BHG) that made such charges is a far larger issue and must be dealt with first. When/if this is cleared up, then I would be happy to work with someone whose considered opinions I very much respect.

I do regret using IP addresses after I was blocked. In those cases, I readily admitted that it was me. I did not engage in vandalism, nor did I condone it...rather I was attempting to rescue articles which had been prodded for deletion (due to lack of sources) but how could I add sources if blocked? I did not 'vote' using more than one identify in any AFD debate.I also note that four times I was accused of sockpuppetry, and those four turned out to be a 71-year-old man, a NASA scientist, and persons in England and Canada. Prior to the current dispute (beginning Nov 1 2007), I had made over 7,000 contributions to Wikipedia, with a 98.5% retention rate and a 96% article retention rate. Those numbers, obviously, would be lower after the current dispute.

I do hope you will post this message and that, after a period of cooling off by both sides, we can then discuss whether I should return to Wikipedia as an editor.

Sincerely
Robert Young

P.S. Please note that User Kitia, apparently around 15 years old, made a gallant but unwise attempt to provide me with a 'talk page' on Wikipedia. Rather than violate Wiki policies, I chose to instead ask that I could contact you directly.

—Moondyne 08:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

E-mail from Ryoung122

Hi Robert. Thanks for the e-mail you sent me. I prefer to reply to people by clicking the "E-mail this user" link, but you haven't enabled an e-mail address. Not sure if you can do that while blocked. It would be under the "my preferences" tab at the top of the page. E-mail me again if you have problems with that, and also e-mail me if it works. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome!

Hello, Ryoung122, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'm hesitant to post your terms of unblock as you never told me directly that it would fine to do so. Would you mind doing the honours? Thanks, Maxim (☎) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm not sure if this is really needed (sometimes less is more). But it's not too much to state that:

1. I agree on the need for sourcing; the original issue was I had wanted "100 days" to locate sources.

2. I agree on the need to get along with others and that I need to be respectful, that not everyone sees things the same way and that I don't "own" any article or discussion.

3. I agree to refrain from editing COI articles (however I should have the right to make comments on the "talk" page).

4. I also agree that "canvassing" is not a good idea...if material is really important, it should be judged as such by neutral, third-party observers.

Ryoung122 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia Robert Young. --Npnunda (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need the offices of an admin, I am prepared to help to the limit of my competence (and within WP practices, naturally). Thanks for the swift helpful advice to BV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be me: welcome back too. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Mr. Young. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back Robert Young. Good luck to you.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee when I noticed that you had already been unblocked. Good luck on your fresh start! TML (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Johnson

Hi Robert,

I have fixed the link. I can't find anything else more recent so think she should be moved to the Limbo Cases. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Greetings, Mr. Young. I have already added the footnote about Mr. Goux to Pontyicelli's article. Oh, and if you want to speask to me, press the "the" in my signature or go to User talk:Editorofthewiki. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Photo

I'm saving the below template for temporary use. I plan to replace it with another photo. Thanks.

Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg

[[Image:ryoung122.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Robert in Los Angeles April 2008
Ryoung122 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep that was me

It is me Robert and I don't want to get banned again. I just want a second chance. But thanks for understanding me. I know I can trust you and I always will. Kgcodyjam (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, an "indefinite block" and a "ban" are not the same...persons banned generally are not allowed to return, ever...an indefinite block can be overturned, on appeal, if a majority of admins reviewing feel to give the blocked party another chance. Hence, it would be best to not create new sockpuppet accounts, but take a break, and return at some time in the future and agree not to engage in past bad edit behavior.

Remember the concept of "one man, one vote"...using sockpuppets to chime in more than once in a debate is patently unfair.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Onie

No problem Robert. The link was showing up as red when I saw the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&oldid=236844222 I'll let it go for now as it is working. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About me

I am a subscriber to your World's Oldest Person group (I've even posted there a number of times), and that's how I knew about you (and your block). However, due to privacy reasons, I prefer not to disclose my WOP group identity here. TML (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can e-mail me privately at ryoung122@yahoo.com for further discussion.

Thanks Ryoung122 07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme longevity tracking

Your removal of the 'globalise' cleanup tempalte from Extreme longevity tracking has been reverted, since you made no relevant change to the article before doing so. Any article which claims that pension tracking is "near-universal" is clearly written from a "first world" perspective. Similarly, your removal of the "who" template, since adding the single word "people" to "some think" does not substantiate the disputed claim. Finally, your pejorative edit summaries were not acceptable. Please remember WP:AGF Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the [above] comments, I find them to be clearly out of line and unacceptable. My edit summary was NOT pejorative. To negatively tag an entire article with the "globalize" tag due to a single line which you can't obviously be bothered to edit, when in fact the article takes a global perspective (the argument being that claims to extreme age are universal across societies) is the height of arrogance. Clearly, civility begins with one's own actions first.

Sincerely,

Robert Young

Ryoung122 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are quite at liberty to dispute the tag on the article's talk page; to ask for a third opinion; or to report me in the appropriate places. Then someone else can tell you that your behaviour was unacceptable, and mine not. I would again remind you of WP:AGF, and that your accusation of arrogance is not on accordance with WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung, your edit summaries here and here were inappropriate, see Help:Edit Summary for proper use of the edit summary function. Additionally, it is considered improper to remove tags from articles without addressing the issue raised in some way as you did here, and you may want to be weary of WP:OWN on that article. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the biography on your user page, an the fact that the article refers to you, you may also have a conflict of interest. I suggest you read COI, also. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aslan119

Hello. On 10 November 2007 User:JzG blocked "Aslan119" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite. The account is indefinitely blocked, so you wouldn't be able to edit from it even if the userpages were restored. It's been a while now, and things seem to be going better, so I'd recommend contacting the blocking admin(s) and asking them if they'd be willing to help you out. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unverified Chinese supercentenarians

You asked why I blanked the category. The answer is that it appears to serve no purpose, since it is not populated -- it contains no pages.

According to WP:SPEEDY, categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days can be speedily deleted. The way this works is practice is that when someone finds an unpopulated category that seems likely to remain so, they blank the page. This causes the page history to record that the category was empty at the time of the edit. If the category is still empty four days later, anyone can put {{db-catempty}} on the category, and within a day or so an administrator will delete the category. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

re Flemishboy (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your comment on my talkpage; I don't see an obvious similarity, since the edits are to the article space and are in the matter of removing duplicate wiki-links and the like. Bart was more into talk pages and adjusting times of other peoples comments, moving such comments into chronological order. If Bart had been doing the edits that Flemishboy is, then he may still be editing now. In any event, I am not looking to pursue it now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, btw

Thanks for your note, and a belated "welcome back" to the maelstrom! Good thing that the 15-deep crowd have been deep-sixed, at least for the moment. BTW, what ever happened to the big re-jig of the Oldest People page? After all the heat, nothing has changed. Seems we should at least pare down some of the agreed-upon stuff (like that useless chart). Canada Jack (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page

The article Local churches is recently been vandalized by User:Ad.minster, furthermore, I do not understand many of the recent edits such as how come this "Sunday Nights" correlates with the Lord's table meeting. His edits disqualifies all of the previous citation but then I can see the addition in the "controversy section" without providing a citation, strange, .. !!

There are some questions to be discussed: Where is the advertisement? Which links are supportive; which links are of the Local churches? Where is this local church? I would ask for the other editors of this page to look into his edits and bring a NPOV in the article and also somehow to reach the general consensus. I have reverted couple of vandalism earlier but this time it seems that discussing the subject might be able to solve the problem among the editors. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox practice

Trying out new signatures....Ryoung122 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Take 2.Ryoung122 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Old Tjikko

In response to your comments at Talk:Old Tjikko, there is no need to take offense or to take my comments personally. We both share in common the goal of improving Wikipedia. I made some minor adjustments to the formatting and placement of your comments, as your placement and formatting were unconventional and, therefore, confused me and could possibly confuse others. I hope that my adjustments did not change the meaning or intent of your comments.

• I moved a comment of yours that was embedded within a comment of mine to immediately after my comment. The end of a comment is indicated by the editor's signature (normally inserted with ~~~~).
• I indented your comments according to indentation guidelines described at WP:TALKPAGE.

Additionally, I removed material that you added that seemed in violation of the Wikipedia Copyright policy (I did this in accordance with WP:COPYVIO, "Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find.") I retained the link you added that referenced the same information. Generally, it's clear to me that we share the same intent of improving Wikipedia and I appreciate the points you have raised. I particularly appreciate the link to the source that discusses the disputed claims. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Tjikko

I have reverted your recent edit to Old Tjikko because it was controversial and unsupported by a reliable secondary source (see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY). I don't dispute the information myself, only that it is unsourced in the article. (As indicated in WP:NOR, it would be inappropriate for me to make an edit based on my opinion.) As the information you added is disputed by reliable secondary sources, it is inappropriate to choose one source over another unless there is no dispute that the prevailing source is more accurate and reliable. If two reliable secondary sources dispute the information, then the article should mention that the claim is disputed. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar and date linking

Hmm. Are you sure you want to initiate a meme like that? Date delinking is needed to some extent. One possibility that might be easier to push is reserving links for useful articles, but having some sort of date-markup for extracting date metadata where needed. That should work for centenarians and their ilk. BTW, have you seen the 100+ age-links at User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX? Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, great to have your attention. I don't believe that ALL date-delinking is bad. However, the way this has been handled (feels like a coup-takeover) is totally wrong. First, a false straw-man was set up that all dates were linked just due to computer formatting or such. Then, it was stated this was no longer necessary, so that meant virtually all date-year links should be deleted. Delete-bots can't distinguish between useful and useless date-links. Furthermore, ALL biography is situated by the birth and death dates, as well as the years of a career (for example, Reagan was U.S. President from 1981 to 1989). A single-year date link often means more than a single-day. A single day does not establish context..."this day in history" does not really establish context. Who cares what happened on Sept 17 in 1893, 1959, and 2008, as if it were all relevant? On the other hand, linking to 1893 establishes context for Edna Parker, world's oldest person. But even for young people: Pete Wentz born in 1979 places him in Generation-X. It makes absolutely no sense to delete links to dates when the very purpose of the date is to establish historical context. Thus, date links to years of birth and death, as well as links to major-career events (for example, taking office in year X) should be retained.Ryoung122 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that links to single years, when used with care, can help establish context. BUT, and this is a big but, I see this as only a placeholder (and not a necessary one as it is trivial to type a year into a search box and get to the year article). What is needed is for biographies to have a short paragraph on overall changes in the world during the lifetime or career of the person in general. You know the sort of thing I mean. Born before the first aeroplane and died after men landed on the Moon. That sort of thing. Practically impossible to source, but if (and it is a big if) done well, then it provides the context. A counter-argument could be that it will be impossible to get these sort of well-written and well-sourced "context" bits, so the links should do that job anyway. I suggest that in the case of very long-lived people, or people whose lives or career span a particular period of upheaval and change, putting links in "See also" to the year of birth and year of death to cover the "state of the world" at these moments, would work. But then linking just the year (maybe in the infoboxes and not the main text) should serve this function (I agree, and so do lots of others, that the day links are useless, unless you are an "on this day" afficianado). I would advise not to oppose date de-linking in the main text of articles - that is a wiki-wide problem that will take a long time to undo - there are problems that were caused by date-linking-to-allow-auto-formatting, and those need to be undone. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I make it 145 articles on people who died aged 100+ (with no-one above 113). It would nice to have a similar set-up for people still living who are over 100. That should be possible from some sort of template. Looking at Category:Centenarians, it is horribly fragmented by natioanalities (and I'm not going to try and count up all those separate subcategories). I could use WP:CATTREE, but still. Is there not a category for living centenarians? If there isn't, I'm going to create one! Ideally, some sort of template logic could help here, but I'm useless at that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked: "Do you want these to become categories? How do we link the person to the age? For example, if Jeanne Calment died at 122, why is she not linked to the "122" age?" - that page (User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX), or rather the ability to generate such links, was produced in response to the proposed deletion of equivalent categories. I'm ambivalent over whether such categories are needed, as I think only the child and old people links/categories would be of any real use. Having a list of several thousand (tens of thousands ultimately) people who died in their 70s and 80s, while it would make demographers very happy, wouldn't really be very useful here. Seeing how the curve changed from century to century would be interesting as well, but ultimately not that meaningful as Wikipedia has a bias in that not every person whose birth or death was ever recorded has an article here. Still, having the data available would be useful, so I'm going to explain how it was done, which will answer your Jeanne Calment question. But I'll do this in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Age calculations

Have a look at Wikipedia:Age calculation templates, while I write the rest of my reply. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. The functionality behind User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX is using "invisible" tracker redlinks (ie. [[example| ]] which produces an empty space which still contains a link: " "). A bit dangerous to overuse that sort of thing, but handy in some cases. This change was done to the template {{Death date and age}}, which is one of most widely used of the stable of age calculation templates at Wikipedia:Age calculation templates. The specific change involves template logic, and was done with this edit. The reason Jeanne Calment doesn't show up on the link-lists I link to is because her age at death is calculated using the {{age in years and days}} template. That would also need to be modified, and, unlike the template that CBD changed, it is used on less then 500 articles. So changing it should be OK. I will do that in a minute. CBD seemed to indicate he would be consolidating the templates at some point. One point here is that if you want to extract precise age data (and it is only the young children and the long-lived people that tend to have the age given in years and months - see {{Age for infant}}), then that would be more difficult. The change I am making will only add "tracker links" for the year. If I can work out how to do this! Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Date-linking "deprecated"?

Comment. The word "deprecated" in these Wiki policies refers to the need to link dates for computer-based reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecated

There are other reasons to link dates, such as establishing historical context. Linking dates for year of birth and death, or years when a politician takes office, makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

hello. thank you for the above message...however, i have not idea what you are referencing. can you be more specific? --emerson7 04:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further to your comments on the above noted deletion discussion, you stated you wanted to use the image on your user page but were unable to figure out how. The way to do it is very simple, go in an edit your user page and add [[Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg|250px]] to the place you want it to show up. In regards to the comment about it being unencyclopedic, the image is very unlikely to be used in an article on WP (unless of course your some famous person!) but as a user here, you are allowed a certain amount of personal non-WP stuff on your user page. I will add the picture to your page and you can move it around if you want.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)'

Thanks, that's where I wanted it...no need to re-invent the wheel, I like to learn from others when I don't know how to do something.Ryoung122 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

UK life expectancy stats

Hi Robert,

These animated maps have recently been created or at least modified and they show as how each year has gone past for the last decade how the life expectancy demographics in the UK have changed, by local government authority. You may have have seen it before but anyway here is the link:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/life-expectancy/default.asp

RichyBoy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Work

Keep up the good work. You are a creditable reference for those who are use to none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.56.240 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

There has been in the last few months a strong reaction to excessive date links. These were being removed by a bot. However, I now see that the opinion is moving back a bit. So keep your date links for now, but I suspect opinion will move back to remove them. Why are they there? What does the reader get from clicking on the link? This is a real question. I'm willing to be convinced that the reader benefits. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Linking and autoformatting of dates and other stuff you can find from there. The stuff you added back is really autoformatting as the people concerned are not, I think, mentioned on the page you are linking to. So, these dates were originally accepted, then not accepted and now something of a debate is going on. Perhaps you can take your pick, but I think they are just clutter. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Robert

		The Original Barnstar
		Robert, you have been so supportive to me and been there for all of the Supercentenarian researchers and the fans. You have kept a look out for everyone here at wikipedia and have done a great job. Keep up the good work. Plyjacks (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are a thing of the past for me

You deserved a barnstar Robert. Also I'm done with creating sockpuppets and I will not create another one. I now know that it can lead to trouble if you create a sockpuppet. So no more. KGC (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Hello there. I might be missing your point, but I was talking about scare quotes in the sense that it seems unnecessarily distancing to pick out a single, specific quotation of "one of the modern classics of Western literature" (which doesn't seem to be attributed to anybody particularly notable) rather than just to say that it's been regarded as one of the modern classics of Western literature.

I'm not sure we gain anything by clarifying those words as verbatim, and we certainly aren't using any of the words "in a sense other than the normal or most-common definition". --McGeddon (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The irony here is that "scare" quotes is a POV term that presuppposes bias in the use of quotations. In this case, the quotes were being used for verbatim copy and were henceforth relevant to avoid plagiarism. However, your re-wording seems acceptable as-is.Ryoung122 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see the new article up and running on the supers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered backing up your data to Flickr? I use it for my research. See here how I store data on individuals, and I can control who sees it. I also back up my articles to Knol. Every once in a while a get a check from Google for the ad revenue it generates.

Qualify for your website?

I just noticed this news article [8], does she just scrape in? RMHED (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the family?Ryoung122 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just stumbled upon it whilst looking for something else. RMHED (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concepts vs Conceptions

OK, I'll bite. I'm as partial to a purely semantic argument as the next idiot... There were two reasons I changed this - style and meaning. The primary definition of conception has to do with biology, not ideas the way concept does. In an opening paragraph the use of obscure definitions to achieve a marginal, obscure accuracy should be avoided, especially if the word used has a primary definition that may cause confusion. Context matters, but this is the lead word in the second paragraph in the opening section. Its meant to be introductory - context is minimal here. If there's a perfectly good word that means the same thing without context then that's what should be used. There's nothing wrong with concept here - its even used in the opening sentence (although incorrectly - that line should read 'refers to the categorizing of humans...')

The other reason was that the sentence refers to variance - change over time. I dont know if the Eden quote advances your argument - he talks of 'old-time conceptions' which can be superceded. That's not, as you said, a sum set of ideas both modern and antiquated. If we go with your defintion, the conception cant vary, it can only be added to. To me, a concept is something that appears as an idea in someone's head, and differences between concepts can vary over time and between people, which is what that paragraph is trying to get at. If a conception was defined as the act of forming a concept then it might work, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. Mdw0 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: This is NOT a "purely semantic argument." The reason that you're wrong is that you, ahem, don't understand the concept of "conceptions of race." The use in the sentence refers NOT to individual concepts of race but group-formulated conceptions of race, in the plural and overlapping sense. For example, Person 1 perceives that the "white race" has white skin, blue or brown eyes, etc. Person B conceives that the "Nordic race" has white skin and blue eyes and the "Mediterranean race" has olive skin and brown eyes. In this sense, the concepts overlap and do not fit exactly. Since the word "concept" is used, semantically, mostly to refer to individual concepts or develops (the Dodge viper concept car) and the word "conceptions" in the plural is used to refer to a collective sum of group concepts, choice B is more correct.

In addition, your red herring about "conception" as relating to biology is silly...no one says "life begins at conceptions." The context of "conceptions of race" make it totally clear as to what meaning is being referred to.Ryoung122 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I really think that whole sentence should be rewritten to something totally different, the more I look at it the weaker it seems. I still don't think concept in there is wrong. Conceptions as a synonym just seems redundant. But you're saying its not a synonym. I think what you're saying is that conception means a group formulated idea and conceptions are multiple group-formulated ideas. Is that right? I doubt you'll find a dictionary differentiating conceptions as being only manifest in and by a group. The ones I've checked all make it a synonym of concept. Or are you saying that conceptions is the plural of concept? That's not in the dictionaries either. If you see that wording as meaning exactly what you want it to mean and nothing else that might be OK for you, but it doesn't do much for the reader. It also makes it a bit hard to have a sensible semantic argument when you're making up your own definitions as you go along!

The one definition which might work for you I found on dictionary.com, which says conceptions ARE the act of forming a concept. So in that case it might work, but its still a redundant meaning - why would you say that the acts of forming ideas change, rather than the ideas themselves? Reading over your examples, I'd say that both person A and B have ideas or concepts that can vary over time. Just to be clear - what is it that you think is changing, the ideas, or the act of formulating the ideas or all the ideas everyone has on a particular topic at once?

Another definition I found was akin to an invention, as in a mental construction of something that doesn't exist in reality. That might also work but would require more context in a rewritten sentence. Mdw0 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Little Sark

Hi Ryoung122 - you made comments at Talk:Sark#Merge Little Sark about merging the article on Little Sark into the main one on Sark. I've made a few changes to the Little Sark article - could I ask you to have a look at it now, to see whether you still think it should be merged? Thank you, Grutness...wha? 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet

Recreating an article within hours after a consensus AfD deletion is not kosher. Please reconsider your actions and revert your recreation. Please take it up at a deletion review if you think the consensus was wrong. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments. Ryoung122 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A wise man once said "[D]eletion review is best used for contested deletions." You contest this deletion. Follow the rules, please. David in DC (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only following consensus when I deleted the article. Please see a more detailed explanation PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) left at my talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you've been here long enough to know how completely inappropriate it is to accost someone who performed the technical aspect of the deletion recreate an article immediately afterwards. Accusing him (I assume the name Julian is a male here, please forgive me if it's not!), or anyone quite frankly, of being "on a crusade against porn, and gay porn in particular" is an uncalled for personal attack, particularly as he could not have closed the deletion discussion if he had voted on the issue. The AfD was up there longer than the average deletion discussion (over a week) so you had plenty of time to comment on it. The correct path was, as has been mentioned above, deletion review. As an uninvolved editor, I speedied it by criteria G4: recreation of deletion material. The issue is not that old and you dispute the deletion: please follow procedure and bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers, CP 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy was incorrect; this was not "recreation of deleted material". I am not the same author as before and the previous version had some formatting advantages that could not be replicated. Further, I added additional citations and one was added by a third party.Ryoung122 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendums, etc.

Robert: Thanks for the note. I agree with just about everything you said. I expected a bit of a debate on the "addendum" issue, and am surprised that none has emerged, besides a few who have reverted them without discussion. And I see that most of the regular contributors have seemingly quickly embraced the addendums without much fuss, updating and improving what I had inserted. (p.s., I know that "addendums" is probably not a word, but I have one of these pet peeves about the pretension of using Latin plurals. We don't readily do that for many of the, for example, French words we use in English - no one says "the news bureaux" )

I also recognize that on some issues here you may feel you have a conflict of interest. And you may feel that it is not your place to make certain sweeping changes. I am in no such position. My interest in gerontology is from an amateur perspective, but I do feel that in this as in many endeavours there is no "correct" approach especially when there are multiple possible sources. Funny you used the boxing analogy, as that was in my mind as well when I put in the addendums (which, of course, was your suggestion in the first place) as there is no single authority. And, as I noted at the time, I haven't seen a "top 100" list from one of these sources. So to pretend, as some have, that there is any sort of "definitive" 100 list is to pretend the different authorities are in agreement. IOW, the pluralistic approach, not natural for many to accept, is the one we should strive to maintain here at wikipedia to retain its true "encyclopedic" mission.

And I also believe as you do that though some cases clearly should no longer be on the page, the fact that some of the authorities accept them is all we should be concerned about. Now that we have identified the various controversies, and included enough extra claims to make the lists truly 100-deep, I think the page is vastly improved. And the list-updaters should be pleased as that means they get to tinker with the page all that more often.

It still grates on me that that long-winded note on Baturiu is still there as that is a clear sign of original research. But the consensus is to keep it. And the day-count issue has been resolved for the time being. Though I would like to point out that when those born after February 28 1900 start entering the list in, I would suppose 2010 on the men's side and 2013 on the people's side, we might start getting a two-day gap. However, if we look at how many new people have entered the list, we see that on both lists, more than 50 per cent of claims are for people who lived into the 21st century, and we are only eight years into the new century! (Deaths post-January 1, 2001) That suggests to me that this "issue" will quickly become a non-issue as newcomers push out the claims which have been here for a long time. Canada Jack (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Efimovich Krichevskiy

Would you happen to have an opinion on whether Mikhail Efimovich Krichevsky, a Unranian who claimed to be 111 when he died on the 26th of December, could or could not be confirmed as a veteran of World War I? There is a discussion that hasn't seemed to agree on anything.

Thanks, Star Garnet (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Giulia Sani-Casagli

Hello Robert. I was going to PROD Giulia Sani-Casagli with the reason of "No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual," but when I saw that you created the article, I figure you'd be oppose, so I thought I'd just come to your talk page. Other than the brief mention in the source provided, there is really no non-trivial information about her that I could find. Rather than dragging her to AfD, however, it might save us both effort and time if we could agree to merging her to List of Italian supercentenarians. I will perform the merge in full myself. Let me know what you think of that or, alternatively, if you have some non-trivial sources that could help demonstrate notability. Cheers, CP 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I could go with a merger. I generally favor mini-bios for persons at least 112 1/2 years old.Ryoung122 10:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll do it right now. Cheers, CP 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet redux

Hello! I have taken the liberty of rewriting Sebastian Bonnet with the addition of references to significant media sources, including the weekly San Francisco newspaper Bay Windows and the monthly magazine Interview. I also discovered a book on the subject that was published in 2004 -- that's in the article. Locating these sources took 10 minutes on Google. Hopefully, the article will remain on Wikipedia. Be well and thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Well, I must say that I never heard of Mr. Bonnet prior to researching the article. Fascinating way to make a living, all things considered. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice Farve

Hello Robert. In this edit to Beatrice Farve, you added a section called "age issue" and a big paragraph about her date of birth... I cannot, however, find this information in any of the references on the page. Could you provide the source where you got this information? Per WP:BLP, all information, particularly controversial items, must be cited to reliable sources. Thanks and Cheers, CP 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want it there, then delete it.Ryoung122 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I "want". If you have a source for it, then it should be there because it is relevant to the article. If not, it should be deleted. Cheers, CP 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is true. The census records are public record. The ID card is not.Ryoung122 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold is verifiability, not truth. I'll give it some time to potentially appear in obituaries, but after that it's getting removed. Cheers, CP 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Teresa Fumarola Ligorio

And another question. Do you want me to merge Maria Teresa Fumarola Ligorio or should I just nominate it for deletion? Cheers, CP 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She was not only Italy's oldest living person, but had for a time been Italy's oldest person on record. I would say that warrants at least a merge.Ryoung122 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of challenged unsourced material and removing fact tags

Re: your repeated additions of unsourced material to Life expectancy and removal of citation needed tags [9] [10], [11].

Please consider WP:BRD, and provide sources for challenged material.

Please do not delete material such as citation needed tags without explanation.

Please explain your reversion of other people's edits.

Please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is the responsibility of the editor adding challenged material to provide WP:RS (and in this case, preferably WP:MEDRS). Thank you.

Dubious not intended as "name calling", the unsourced material was not clearly true, therefore I was dubious of the material. Is there a more generally preferred shorthand phrasing when challenging/removing unsourced material? Zodon (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Life expectancy. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Also please consider [12] 'Comment on content, not on the contributor.'WP:NPA Zodon (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

Per WP:MEAT, either retract the accusation that you made in this edit or bring it up at WP:ANI. That is a very serious accusation and I won't have it bandied about in a casual fashion. Cheers, CP 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with YOU is that you think Wikipedia revolves around YOU. Once again, read your above statement:

1."won't have it"--(this is NOT about what YOU will have or not have, it's about what is fair for Wikipedians)

2."bring it up" (telling me what to do)

I said "could be viewed" not that it was. Thus I am pointing out a potential problem with such a comment. Further, to claim this was a 3. "casual fashion" is false; 4. "bandied about" is spin. Nothing you said above was more than an emotional outburst. I just pointed out four POV emotional problems with your one message above. Yet you rarely, if ever, admit to fault. Your negotiations often begin with a threat (such as a threat to delete an article) so why should you expect positive feedback from negativity?Ryoung122 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2:

Meatpuppets Policy shortcuts: WP:MEAT WP:TEAMWORK

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose,

The commenter never edited Wikipedia or existed before 21 February 2009, yet finds the "list of living supercentenarians" page. Not only that, but he/she/it specifically mentions CP, claiming to "agree completely" without even discussing the issues. Those two facts make it a highly questionable comment.

As for ANI, usually ANI is reserved for multiple, repeated offenses or a single, very serious one. Simply giving someone notice that their conduct may be a violation of Wiki policy is a first response. It does not seek to raise the problem to a higher level. Thus, there is no reason (yet) to take this to ANI. Further, sometimes new editors engage in "meatpuppetry" even if not specifically requested to do so. Thus, the accusations were directed toward the new editor and his/her/its comments specifically.Ryoung122 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation Robert that attacks my conduct on my Wikipedia, so yes, I am going to be very insistent that you either retract it or, if you truly believe it, bring it to the proper authorities. If not, I will bring it up myself because it is not something that I will have lying unresolved on a talk page. Yes, "I" won't have it because it is an attack against "me". I am telling you what to do because this is NOT an accusation to be taken lightly. "Casual fashion" and "bandied about" are both true because you have not dealt with this accusation with the seriousness that it merits. You are accusing me of recruiting others to support me on Wikipedia. And not that it has anything to do with this issue, but I always admit to fault when necessary (see my request for adminship for a simple example). Cheers, CP 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the very definition of meat puppet, if I didn't request anyone to do so, they can't be a meat puppet. Cheers, CP 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy as currently written does NOT say that one has to be "requested to do so" to be a meat puppet:

Meatpuppets Policy shortcuts: WP:MEAT WP:TEAMWORK

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.[citation needed] The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care.

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.

There are in fact two issues, engaging in meatpuppetry (issue 1) and recruiting meatpuppets (issue 2). If there were not two issues, there would be no need to list this two ways.

In any case, I am supposed to be meeting a 110-year-old woman today, so have a nice day. Ryoung122 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not take this lightly and will begin by bringing this issue up with your Wikipedia mentor for further resolving. Cheers, CP 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Race" as a "Social Construct"

You said: There may be growing pc consensus, but a quick check of biology shows that it's simply spin.

To the best of my knowledge, biologists (especially geneticists) agree that "race" isn't a meaningful biological classification. This doesn't contradict the genetic diversity of humanity; it just says that separating humanity into racial "clusters" (as opposed to geographical clines) isn't really meaningful.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Springs, Georgia

At what level of per-capita income (or some other factor) does a city become affluent? Qqqqqq (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside sources consider Sandy Springs "affluent." Also, the median household income is $72,000:

http://www.sandyspringsga.org/

In 2007, the median household income in Sandy Springs is $72,682, up from $60,428 in 2000. The median home value is $451,200, up more than $135,000. Ryoung122 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(These unnamed "outside sources" sound dubious, but I digress.) Those numbers may be, but I still find the use of "affluent" in the lead to be POV. Why not just let the numbers speak for themselves? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people try so hard to be "NPOV" that they basically rob the article of meaning. This community is affluent based on statistics (compared to the median values for Georgia), not opinions. Therefore, it is not POV.Ryoung122 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

W. Lee

Dear Ryoung122,

I've edited and removed all the unsourced materials from the article ("Objective or Subjective" & "Positive or Negative"). Removed the citation tag from the article as there are no more tags in the article. Added a couple of references and have given my input on the talk page. Thank you. HopeChrist (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was clear that this was a single-issue editor whose edits were POV and biased. Thus it was good to undo most if not all of them.Ryoung122 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Robert Young; In case you haven't read my response to you here it is. As I was reading you talk page I could see what a pain in the butt you are to so many people. Wow! Well at least you stay in character:

Dear Mr. Robert Young (Ryoung122), You err in your logic in several ways:

1) You assume I am a Witness Lee “opposer”. To disagree is not to oppose. But maybe this is your definition of an “opposer”: “anyone not with us is against us”. Again I say this is similar to arguments leveled in the past against those who left a local church. “Ah, you are not one with us so you must be one with the Devil.” Since you don’t own this site, it is neutral ground and editors are just adding what they think is relevant. An “opposer” I suppose would be attaching Witness Lee’s LSM. You speak as if you have not already claimed this article for yourself and take great pride in it as if it is definitive or a real encyclopedia which it is not, nor is it recognized as such by experts around the world. So, please, don’t be so high minded and defensive and attaching everyone.

I don't have to assume anything, your own words convict you. To disagree is to oppose. If Congress took a roll call vote and you voted "nay" then you oppose the motion. Now, I didn't say that you were "one with the Devil" because to say such a thing would be to attach a POV, unverifiable opinion. But to say you are an "opposer" when you are opposing is not.

 No, to oppose requires action; to disagree requires opinion. I am not opposing but editing.

Also, do you mean "attacking"? Yes.

And LSM is not "Witness Lee's"--he is deceased for 10+ years.

So I can’t be a Witness Lee opposer. Thank you.

As for putting down Wikipedia: this is one of the top-ten most-visited websites in the world and, for better or worse, most students turn to Wikipedia first. Also, as Coretta Scott King said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The message is that one should not allow something wrong to slide by with the claim of "insignificant"--otherwise the "tumor" will simply grow larger.

Yea, that is why I try to edit out your nonsense. Hey, Robert, usage does not imply authenticity or appropriateness.

And no, I have not claimed this article for myself...but I do see your edits as counterproductive.Ryoung122 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I yours.

2) Shouting in capital letters is not becoming and shows your anger. I think we can do without your little tirades but they are good for a laugh.

Words typed on Wikipedia, capital letters or not, are not "shouting." You cannot HEAR the capital letters.

YES, YOU CAN! Comments such as "little tirades" and "good for a laugh" are attempted put-downs that reflect more on you than they do on me. They are an attempt to elevate you above me. Attempt failed. Laughter is acceptable for humor, not for belittling people. Putting others down to make yourself feel better is NEVER appropriate.Ryoung122 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So stop it already.

3) You say I focus on the negative in Witness Lee’s writings. I think you are referring to Witness Lee’s writing about Babylon as being the negative portion of his 25,000+ words. I don’t know why you view this as negative unless you don’t have a NPOV. They are just words and we are just staying them as facts, not commenting for or against the words. But seeing the words as negative you lash out against me and accuse me of being an “opposer”.

4) You place me “in a rebellion against him within the local church in 1987.” What rebellion was I in? I don’t know what you are talking about unless it is the rebellion made up by Witness Lee in his own mind concerning 3 individuals with whom he had some kind of dispute. I never knew of any rebellion, not did I ever contact anyone Lee considered involved in “His Rebellion” concerning my decision to leave the local church. I just left and never came back other than to privately meet with the elders in my locality and discuss my leaving with them. One of them called me a “liar” and “one with the devil” and that is the last I every talked with them or any member of a local church. You seem to want to see yourselves at the center of a battle for the truth and you make up non-existent enemies to justify your fighting. This is strange and would be funny like Don Quixote, if it weren’t so sad.

What is so sad is your self-delusion: you stir the pot and then deny it.

You stirred the pot when you accused me of being in a rebellion.

5) I admit to taking the name “localchurch”. However that does not identify me as a single-issue non-NPOV editor. It simply means that since I wanted to learn how Wikipedia works I started with a user name that I could remember as I edited an article with which I had personal experience to see how it works. My interest lies more in how Wikipedia is edited than in the local churches. I admit to messing with your mind a little so that I could instruct my students how untrustworthy Wikipedia is, so that they can learn to seek out better sources of information. My students and I have learned a great deal and we thank you for your help in demonstrating Wikipedia’s unreliability to my students. 70.95.99.216 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Opps! Forgot to sign in as Localchurch (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs)

"I admit to messing with your mind a little bit". Again, more proof that you are not editing in good faith. Now, I don't have to ASSUME GOOD FAITH because you admitted to bad-faith editing. Thanks!

Whooo Hooo! You won one! Congratulations, Robert. You win. I will go away now. Whooo Hooo!

Of course, even the claim that you are "messing with my mind" says more about you than it does about me. Since I am more intelligent than you, you cannot mess with my mind. But saying so shows a pattern of constructing an alternate reality that is often described as a "God-complex": having an exagerrated sense of self-worth.

Hey! Now that hurts. I am something very special, I’m the only one-of-a-kind. God loves me and so does everyone else including you. You love me. You know you do. Come on, admit it.

Also, my edits do NOT demonstrate the "unreliability of Wikipedia". Perhaps yours do--or rather, the accumulated weight of edits by other editors supported Wikipedia's balance against your apparent ego-trip.

Just wondering: you claim to have "students". I feel sorry for them, whatever it is you are attempting to "teach" them. You can't even spell "oops", what does that say about you?

Oops. Yea, my brother says I am a bad speller to. And I am a bad typer. That says, I guess, that I am a very bad teacher. Very bad! I will tell my students. Students, I am very bad because I cannot spell oops. I spelled it “opps” and that is not a word. What? Whats that you say? Oh, I can’t tell Robert that; he would be crushed.

Finally, I am reminded that Confucius warned that it was "not wise to argue with a fool...one might not know the difference." Thus I am going to simply say this: STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE!!!! Ryoung122 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Opps!

You misspelled "notorious"

- - You continue to show yourself as not the best person when it comes to spelling, capitlization, logic, grammar, or practical sense. Your latest misspellings just continue a long line of evidence to those conclusions.Also, dredging up old disputes from 2007? Canada Jack and I are now friends. But then again, you still hold a grudge from 20+ years ago, all because you wanted the "local church" to be about YOU. It's not. By the way, the "local church" is NOT capitalized because "local" is an adjective (a description of what it is), not a noun. But once again, you choose to be aberrant, self-centered, and self-deluded. - - Finally, I thought I told you to stay off my talk page. I will stay off of yours if you do likewise.

Not wise to argue with a fool. You should stay away from that, Robert. Ouch! You caught me at bad spelling, "capitlization", hehehehe, the ultimate in stupidity--misspelling when criticizing misspelling. Ouch! That's got to hurt your ego. Wow! Anyway, I have no old disputes, just current ones that exist in the LSM current on-line writings (See current discussion concerning Wise Master Builder. This is not 20 years ago. Just because I left 20 years ago doesn't mean I am concerned with the issues back then. I just want you to face up to the reality you have created for yourself and marvel that you are undertaking going to the world to get your message across. It is also interesting to see the same old arguments come up again, i.e. "you are part of a rebellion", and "they handed out pamphlets saying Witness Lee is a pope." I didn't. I was not even there. You were; maybe you are part of the rebellion. Maybe when you were 13 you handed out such pamphlets for all we know. I don't think you ever got me on logic or practical sense; I mean, I had the practical sense to leave the Local Church. I can capitalize it--I am an outsider. That's what we do, or so says Wikipedia on the sight: Local Churches. Wow! what a powerful argument your aberrant, self-centered, and self-deluded argument is! By your definition adding numerous corrections to the Witness Lee article is self-centered, and of course to disagree with the great Robert Young is to be self-deluded. Hehehe. Yea, you best advice is not to argue with a fool, because you start looking more foolish than the fool. Tata, go to get back to editing the Witness Lee article, doing the work that God called me to. I suggest you do the same. You seem to be an expert on old age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:EDITS

Hi Ryoung, I see you've updated wp edits, and noticed that I've dropped off the list. Could you perhaps have another look at your new version as some of the data seems to have reverted to July 2008. Also is there a way of making it smaller as my PC really struggles with 250k files. WereSpielChequers 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why the latest edit count update is a version from six months ago. Check the Nov 2008 version, I had 198,000, currently I have 225,000. The same for the others too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've undone your edit to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest as it seems to have taken it back 7 months from Feb 09 to July 08. However if you want to re run it using the latest data (theres at least one more recent dump available) please could you make it smaller? The file wound up at 250k and not every user can handle that. Rather than having one table showing bots, sysops, total edits and recent edits it might be better to create multiple lists. WereSpielChequers 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was trying to update an old version which was incorrect, not change the new version. Someone has fixed this problem.Ryoung122 10:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No Problem, just for future reference the latest version of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest is automatically transcluded into wp:EDITS. WereSpielChequers 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander

Hello Robert

I run the portuguese version of List of living supercentenarians, and I see that you anounced the death of Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander. Can you provide me any proof of it, since if I delete Plaat-Kolenbrander from the list with no proofs, other user can revert my edition, and I cannot argue with him/her. And, why does she remain in GRG list?Japf (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that she passed away in 2008. We are waiting for the date of death to update the GRG list.Ryoung122 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lewis, Jr.

Hi, I did some formatting on your entry at the Charles Lewis, Jr. AFD for readability. Please go ahead and revert if it was inappropriate. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I added the refs in it's own edit now, and while I still believe some of the content isn't in a very NPOV ATM it'll be worked out over time. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lewis, Jr

Report me for removing unsourced material that appears to be original research from a BLP? Sure, have fun with that. Instead, if you have a source for it you should put it up for all to see :) Best, --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read your messages at the article-talkpage and I re-added it with a footnote explaining the calculations :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent

Hi Robert. Some concerns have been raised here. I've responded there, and sent you an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Robert: Got your note about this case. I understand your rationale for the dispute here, but for the purposes of wikipedia, is this an opinion which can be cited (as opposed to that Japanese case you doubt but there's been no published dispute so we couldn't put "dispute" on it)? I took it upon myself to find links for pretty well all the dispute cases on the "100" pages. (Couldn't find one for Beard's case.) So if there is some way I can cite this, that would be great (I saw nothing on GRG which explicitly doubted Graham's case outside a suggestion it was problematic with no explanation - please point me in the right direction here...)

My general point here is not to argue about Graham's case per se but to be a bit more stringent about what is and what is not "disputed" and to make there there is explicit mention of the issues in dispute. And to ensure that someone coming to the pages will see that, indeed, there are x number of disputed cases and therefore that same x number in the addendum. As it stands, there appears to be 3 disputes but 4 in the addendum. Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting your wikipedia article back

Hi Robert,

Maybe you should get your article back on wikipedia. If you want to start a new one I will support it. Enjoy your vacation. KGTC (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

Maybe someone else should start it. Since 2007, I've only added to my resume, including obtaining my Master's degree in 2008, winning the national award for best graduate paper in gerontology (2008) and having been featured again in the AJC newspaper (an article about me) in 2009. But I don't think we need a separate article yet. What we DO need is to add ONE PARAGRAPH to the extreme longevity tracking article for each major player. You could add a paragraph about me there, and the rules for inclusion as part of an article, rather than a standalone article, are not so strict.Ryoung122 06:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Noteworthy

Robert wrote on a Living Stream Ministry edit, "PLEASE...TELL ME THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE". Uh, Robert, the Bible is the only Christian scripture. Now maybe you meant to say the Bible is the most significant publication of the Living Stream Ministry. But you made a Freudian slip and substituted "scripture" for "publication of the Living Stream Ministry". You tend to make these kind of Freudian slips more often when you are SHOUTING IN CAPITALS. The sad thing is that the LSM is publishing the Recovery Version in order to publish Witness Lee's footnotes which take up more space than the Bible and apparently have become "scripture" to some very much like the Mormons adding something to the Bible. Localchurch (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an old saying, "Assumptions make asses of us all." What you say above is 100% incorrect. I do not take local church ministry work as "scripture." I was alluding to the fact that SOME Christians might think there is scripture other than the Bible (the Apocrypha, for example) but ALL agree that the Bible is more important than the extra books (which Catholics include). Your "Freudian slip" nonsense is simply YOU projecting your AGENDA...that is, the agenda to bash the "local church."

Let me say this: you don't know anything about me. I might be an atheist. I might be a Buddhist. I might be defending the local church in the same way I defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, NOT the place to wage a debate about the local church, apologism, or for you to insert your ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I will say this: my personal opinion of you is that you have forgotten that "your rights end where others begin." If you choose to leave the local church, fine. Leave. But it's not for you to make that choice for other people.

Go away.Ryoung122 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

KMA

Robert writes: "Let me say this: you don't know anything about me. I might be an atheist. I might be a Buddhist. I might be defending the local church in the same way I defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, NOT the place to wage a debate about the local church, apologism, or for you to insert your ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I will say this: my personal opinion of you is that you have forgotten that "your rights end where others begin." If you choose to leave the local church, fine. Leave. But it's not for you to make that choice for other people. You are not a good person because you seek to destroy and tear down the work of others, rather than build something for others. Ryoung122 06:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U;ser_talk:Localchurch"

No I don't know anything about you. Wikipedia is a place to discuss articles and edits to articles. I have no original research; I don't know to what you are referring. I can't leave the Local Church, I already left. I agree, you also must make that, or another choice for yourself. I don't know what you mean by "destroy and tear down". I have made many constructive edits to Witness Lee article and some others. Please do not view these as destroying and tearing down the work of others, but rather repairing. I look forward to working with you whenever I can be of help to you. Thank you for your constructive criticism however misguided. I missed you while you were gone. Welcome back! Localchurch (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are like the person who cannot separate church from state. Wikipedia is a virtual-reality world with its own policies and "laws"...which you continually break. I do not view your edits of the local church articles as constructive in any way. For example, trying to say that the Recovery Version Bible is "mainly" footnotes, and your other comments about scripture, indicate that you view the local church the same way some view Mormons...not Christian and adding extra material to the Bible. But you are wrong. The Recovery Version Bible makes clear what is scripture and what is not; the text is larger than the footnotes. Much of the footnotes cite similar verses elsewhere in the Bible. The local church NEVER claims that the teaching of Witness Lee is scripture. Also, they never claim a formal name, so your use of a capital "Localchurch" moniker is purposely deceptive.

Remember, Wikipedia is NOT about what you want; it is about objectivity. Articles on the local church, Witness Lee, and the LSM should describe what they are and do, and give a little history...that's it. They are not here to convince someone to join, or to convince someone not to join, or to bring people to Jesus. Also, your messages left for HopeChrist were not only highly inappropriate for Wikipedia but reflect a clear misunderstanding of the Bible. Jesus himself said "the poor you have with you always." His words need to be placed into context...he only said "go and sell all" to the man who placed riches first in his heart. Nowhere does it say that every man needs to go and sell all.

What is first in your heart? Let me say it: YOUR WILL. You are not about Jesus. You are about YOU. So, my advice to you (since you think Wikipedia is the place to give advice): repent of your sins, leave Wikipedia, join a monastery, and hopefully we'll never see you again.Ryoung122 07:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Localchurch"

Thank you, Robert. I agree with the purpose of Wikipedia. I hope I am not breaking the rules. I am doing my best since you instructed me not to play around. I am not trying to get anyone to join or leave anything. What makes you think that? I will talk to HopeChrist about any problems he had with my messages. You are turning all my words around and although I was going to try to straighten out your mistakes, I will just state one. I am not trying to get anyone into or out of the local churches, LSM or to follow Witness Lee or not. I am just trying to give a more accurate picture of what they are about. I hope that if you reread the articles themselves, not the notes in which we discuss our perspective, that you will see that I have done that. You are letting the discussion pages color your view of the articles. Please be fair and impartial and let me know if any of my edits are not accurate and appropriate. Please be specific and don't deal with innuendos.

Now, Robert, you know what you said in your last paragraph was not nice and violates Wikipedia rules about being polite and friendly. You did not read carefully the discussion between HopeChrist and I. He asked for my advice or I would not have given it. But I forgive you and hope we can collaborate on some articles in the future. Nighty, nite. Localchurch (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with HopeChrist

Robert, in response to HopeChrist, I responded to his apology. Below is the documentation of your intrusion. You have violated the rule you say I violated. However, I was asked for advice and you were not. So please stop sticking your nose into discussions others are having with each other. Also you engaged in personal attacks on me all of which I take an exception to. You accuse me of being hateful and having a mission to destroy and I do not. I have added many constructive changes to the articles I have been editing. Please judge me not by my beginning but by how much I have learned as a result of your and HopeChrist's gentle guidance. Please objectively view my edits and judge them for themselves; don't judge me. This should not be a place to criticize others no matter what you think of their NPOV. Localchurch (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology for prejudging me. Here are some suggestions as to what you can do: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Realize that you do not have a NPOV when it comes to the local churches and Witness Lee and therefore not qualified to edit them without introducing a biased perspective.

that might be true.Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2) Sell all you have give it to the poor and follow Jesus.

Wikipedia is NOT the place for evangelism, proselytyzing, apologism, or pushing POV...also, HopeChrist apparently already follows Jesus. The problem with "Localchurch" is that he thinks that only his version of Jesus is the "right" Jesus...but unless his material is published in reliable sources, putting it on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:RS policy.Ryoung122 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I know but HopeChrist asked "What Can I Do?" (see heading above) and so I offered my suggestions. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3) Understand the Lord's words: "First take the log out of your own eye...." were intended to show you that you can't fix others because there will always be another log in there. So exercise righteousness on your self and mercy toward others until you find yourself in a place called "The New Jerusalem".

In my opinion, "HopeChrist" does NOT have a "log in his eye." Also, the Bible does NOT say that there is always another log...the words were directed to "hypocrites". Other scriptures tell brothers to admonish one another with spiritual love, something Localchurch knows nothing about.Ryoung122 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) We all have logs in our eyes. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4) Judge yourself not by how much you think you are filled with the divine triune processed all-inclusive life-giving seven-fold intensified Spirit, but by how much you have helped those in need.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Yes it does say that, check out the book of James (or have your torn that book out?). Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5) Understand that no matter how many adjectives you give to the Spirit of God they are just meaningless words unless you do 2) above.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 6) Stop going to all those meetings passively listening and spend time helping others if you want to be spiritual (i.e. become a doctor and devote you life to healing the poor).

Learning is not "listening passively."Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is just my opinion and this was our conversation, not Roberts. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

7) Repent from reading Witness Lee's footnotes and get back to the Bible only. Localchurch (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, proof that "Localchurch" is anti-Witness Lee and anti-local church. Lee's footnotes are useful, effective, and help make the Bible more meaningful, in part by bringing together similar verses in the Bible. It took 70 years for Lee to complete his work...that's a lifetime. "Localchurch" spends his time tearing down others, not building things up. Don't listen to him.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) No, I just think enough is enough. I know of local churches that "prayread the footnotes". Pretty soon the Bible is forgotten and colored. This is an appropriate comment to HopeChrist who told me to take off my colored glasses so I could see clearly. However, I think the same applies to HopeChrist. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear HopeChrist, you should have not apologized. "Localchurch" is NOT a "brother"...he is an opposer. He is an evil person whose mission is to spread lies. Look, I don't care if someone is Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever...as long as they can be trusted. But when it is their mission to deceive, that is not acceptable. Ouch! Oh but I am a brother who holds to the common faith and was mysteriously born of the Spirit. Bzzzzzzt, wrong, but thank you for playing. That is not Christian of Robert to say that and reflects poorly on the local churches if that is their attitude, because they keep saying in print that they would never say that those who disagree with them are not brothers. Please assure me, HopeChrist, that this is not the view the local churches hold. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is NOT the place for theological debates, apologism, or any of the like. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and as such, the goal of Wikipedia is to be as objective and NPOV as possible...clearly this is NOT "Localchurch's" goal.

Now, come on Robert. I am trying to be objective and NPOV. I am trying very hard and writing edits that help Wikipedia to be more NPOV. I only am discussing this with HopeChrist because he asked me to. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HopeChrist" Hidden categories: All pages needing factual verification | All articles that may contain original research | Articles needing additional references from September 2008 | Articles lacking sources from September 2008 | All articles lacking sources

TB Ping

Hello, Ryoung122. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wow! You are not nice, welcoming and polite to other Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia asks you to be. Localchurch (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this conversation has to do with you, but I'll bite. Did you read his message to me? Do you think his conversation with me was welcoming and polite? He accused me of being ignorant so I responded in due form. Enough said. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment was directed to Ryoung122. Yes, I read his message to you. He treats everone with arrogance, mean spiritedness and is very unpolite and unwelcoming. That's just the way Robert is. He thinks he is God's gift to the rest of us. Localchurch (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I feel like an ass then. I'm sorry. I see what you mean though, this talk page is full of enough WikiDrama to make me want to ignore him which I should've done in the first place. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Longevity folklore

Please comment about the compromise title longevity folklore (for the longevity myths or longevity narratives article), at Talk:Longevity narratives#Discussion toward consensus. This message is being copied to 4 people. Thank you. JJB 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It is in your interest to answer these two questions in addition to those I asked you at Talk:Longevity narratives, and it is appropriate to ask them here instead of there. Reference. JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Ryoung says "I agree on the need to get along with others and that I need to be respectful, that not everyone sees things the same way and that I don't 'own' any article or discussion." Are characterizations of other editors respectful when they include such terms as "hijack", "farce", "YOUR OWN INFRACTIONS", "If you are offended by this article, or others such as ones on pornography, then leave", "this article is not about what you read to your child at bedtime", "completely misses the point", "Do you really think it took 7 days for [creation] to happen?", "misses the entire point", "fantasy: the same realm that includes 'stories' of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster", "Attempting to overthrow five years of consensus-building with just two weeks of massive editing is clearly disruptive", "p.c. b.s.", "Is 'UFO' a loaded word?", "stop your ORIGINAL RESEARCH"? JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It seems that YOU are the one being scorched-Earth here. Consider, for a moment: would ANYTHING I said above have to be deleted from TV broadcast? NO. A "Personal attack" is Perez Hilton saying "Carrie Prejean is a b... and a c...". The above comments that I made are NOT a personal attack. It was not about you, it was about your actions. For example, the word "hijack" means "steal away." I do really think you have tried to change this article way too fast, while others were busy. Now that things have calmed down a bit, there are still many, many reasons why you are wrong. I will explain one at a time.Ryoung122 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Ryoung says "I agree to refrain from editing COI articles (however I should have the right to make comments on the 'talk' page)." Would you please provide a list of articles and/or categories of articles that constitute COI articles? JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the definition of "refrain":

to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse

I didn't say "never." However, in my mind a COI article is one where I'm editing material in a way that comes across as "self-promotion", such as "Gerontology Research Group." I don't see idea-promotion (the longevity myths article was created by Louis Epstein) as the same as "self-promotion." If I'm quoting myself as the source, then that's self-promotion. However, others are free to do so.Ryoung122 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you appear to believe yourself in compliance, and presuming your familiarity with WP:WL and WP:INDEF, I would conclude that you would invite having a random admin independently verify your compliance. JJB 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the above seems like a peronal attack: focusing on the messenger, NOT the message. Clearly, you are pushing an agenda that is not in compliance with Wikipolicies such as "No Original Research" and "Verifiability"(articles should reflect outside research, not your personal opinion). It is clear that YOU are engaging in "wikilawyering" rather than try to be constructive and come to consensus. You should reconsider your actions and comments before continuing to push POV, unscientific editing on a subject that you clearly know nothing about.Ryoung122 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert, I came here after posting at WP:COI/N that I didn't see a COI problem so far. But I am a little concerned to see your comment above about "idea-promotion". Per WP:NPOV, the job of Wikipedia is to present the difft perspectives on a subject in a fair and balanced way, and I don't think that "idea-promotion" fits well with that principle.

I'm delighted that your return appears to have gone smoothly so far and I don't want to get involved in this area again, but I urge caution about an appearing to be pushing a particular POV. And WP:CIVIL doesn't just mean avoiding personal attacks, it also means not using language which unnecessarily antagonises other editors.

Over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi, you have been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Longevity_myths.2C_Longevity_claims.2C_etc. In August 2008 you said that you would stop editing pages with which you had a conflict of interest with (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryoung122&diff=234473900&oldid=234418766) yet you appear to still be doing so. Your comments with regard to this would be most welcome. Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How long does it take before an individual is put on the grg table e list? John Campbell Ross has been 110 for a few months now and his name has yet to appear on that list. I'm sure that there is a lot of verification to be done and a lot of individuals that need to be verified with few to comb the files. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.56.240 (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining "biblical scholar"

(I'm re-writing my first effort)

You asked me for my definition of the term "biblical scholar". I doubt that there's any easy-to-find definition to hand, so this must be understood as my own personal view.

I'm using the term in a rather restricted sense. Witness Lee is undoubtedly a scholar, and he studied the bible, but the focus of his interest was the spiritual. That's not what I'm attempting to define. Witness Lee would look at the spiritual meaning of Methuselah and the other patriarchs, but he wasn't interested in the history of the bible itself. Nor, I think, did he have the scholastic tools to examine that side - a knowledge of the relevant languages, which include the languages of the ANE as well as Hebrew, nor I think would he have followed archaeological discoveries and theories, nor the developments in literary theories of the bible. Certainly he never published in relevant peer-reviewed journals such as the RBL (just an example) - I imagine he never even tried, it wouldn't have been his area of interest. Nor are his books cited by biblical scholars (using the restricted definition I outlined above: the history of the text) - again, I doubt that this bothered Witness Lee at all. So, for the purpose of investigating the origins of the Methuselah myth, as opposed to its meaning, Witness Lee is not a relevant source.

PiCo (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

grg table e

How long does it take before an individual is put on the grg table e list? John Campbell Ross has been 110 for a few months now and his name has yet to appear on that list. I'm sure that there is a lot of verification to be done and a lot of individuals that need to be verified with few to comb the files. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.56.240 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians

You undid, without any explanation, the correction I made to the entry for Louisa Shepherd. Why? As I explained on the talk page, she was born, and still lives, in Monmouthshire, which at the time of her birth was legally part of England, and which is now within Wales. She lives in the same place she was born, and it appears to be consistent with other entries in such circumstances - for example, Rosa Rein - for this to be recognised in the schedule itself. Could you please explain your actions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained my edit on the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You earned it

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This barnstar goes to you Robert for all the hard work you do to make wikpedia and supercentenarians better. You have been through a lot of diffcult things on wikipedia, the 110 club and and the yahoo WOP group. I have seen many difficult and stressful things go on with the groups but I've never seen anyone handle it as well as you. I gave you a barnstar last year and this year I thought you should get another one because I've never seen someone handle things like you have and do it very well. For all you do you deserve another one. Plyjacks (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eugénie Blanchard

Hi there. You're usually first on the scene with knowledge about this kind of thing, so I hope you can set me right or wrong. Following the death notice on Deaths in 2009 about Lucia Lauria Vigna, I checked Blanchard's article, and the article itself said that she had died, but no notice was up on the Recent deaths page.

Like I said on Blanchard's page, I'm not sure whether or not it qualifies as BLP •grins• but any further knowledge or news would be appreciated. All the best. Bobo. 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines

O.K., you may change the edit. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Ryoung122. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

blocknote

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

In response to this, you've been blocked for a week. I encourage you to use the unblock template to explain what's going on here. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryoung122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was not a threat, it was a hypothetical statement. User Fyunck(click) has been deleting the names of French Open champions, which should be vandalism. I was shocked and apalled that, after our compromise discussion in 2007, he went back to the same aggrieved behavior as before. While I overreacted, my intention was to point out a problem. The problem is that Fyunclick has been dominating/WP:OWN ing the Wikipedia tennis articles, rather than following the rules, which state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should follow what outside sources say, NOT his own personal view of the world. Point #2: My goal on Wikipedia is to promote "education." Wikipedia is NOT paper. There's no reason to delete the names of French champions prior to 1925. The Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources list them, as do other articles on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I find you calling it not a threat disingenuous, because even if so, it is a severe personal attack and would be blockable in any case. I will not speak on the content issue(s); those are irrelevant as regards blocks (which are conduct-based). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Conflict

I suggest you take this conflict to the tennis project for resolution. Note the following points.

1. Try not to revert more than the changes you disagree with when reverting - if you revert at all.
2. Despite the Men's title having an English winner, it may not have been truly open, and the Women's may have had different entry requirements.
3. The validity of including, and usefulness of, some of the derived statistics may be in question. If they are not there and there is a change in the status of the French event it can be footnoted.
4. It would be useful to know when the term "Grand Slam" was first applied to these tourneys.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Bart's apperance

I heard through the grapevine that Bart was blocked from wikipedia for a little while. But I could be wrong.

But your welcome for the barnstar with all your hard work, you deserve it and also with the passing of Henry Alligham I edited Walter Breuning's title on his wiki page. But anyways welcome back to Wikipedia. Plyjacks (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest man navbox

Hi Robert, I started a nav box for the world's oldest man since 1973. If you would like I also can start one for the world's oldest person as well. Let me know what you think? Plyjacks (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham

I noticed your comment edit summary on Henry Allingham, and thank you so much for leaving a sensible edit summary, it really helps other editors, whether they agree or disagree.

I agree with you that it is pointless to link his birthdate (and only his birthdate) since it is really not relevant. I took this to Talk:Henry Allingham after doing private chat, both with no response. I was going to revert anyway (expecting it to be reverted back, last time the original editor skimmed WP:3RR by waiting just beyond the day change). I really don't care if it is linked or not, but I had worked a lot getting consistency on the article, and to my mind this works in the opposite direction.

I can't see any point in me reverting it since I imagine it will be just changed back again, I will take it to dispute resolution but since the OE has not bothered to reply in a week either on talk page or user page I will probably have it. (I think also the OE may have mistakenly posted anonymously but assuming good faith that is either my error or the editor's, in good faith; I have done it myself.)

in short, it does not matter if they were born in 1986 or 1919, as you succinctly put it. It's already in the infobox anyway, and has a section "Longevity". I mention this partly because Harry Patch died yesterday (ish, depending on your time zone) so this may get hit a lot. This is partly why I wait a few days for it to calm down.

best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ryoung122. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On date linking of 1896 in Henry Allingham and Harry Patch. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Grand Slam tennis champions

Sorry, I had an emergency in real life that prevented me responding to you until now. Please note that the protected version of the page is not the endorsed or preferred version. If you want to change it, you need to form consensus with the other editor. Please work with him on the talk page of the article, or request a third opinion if consensus can not be reached. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you were trying to work out consensus here. Why haven't you responded to his/her post? Wikipedia operates on consensus, and I'm afraid that the article should remain protected until consensus is reached. From what I can see, there is no clear cut "right or wrong" side to this argument, and I am not going to arbitrarily side with either you or him/her. If you still cannot reach any agreement, I would recommend dispute resolution as a next step. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of LGBT History

With regard to your revert of my edit to the paragraphs on Pederasty, I don't understand the "under 18" edit comment as that was not my issue. Can you please raise this on the talk page in the section I added at the time of making my edit?—Ash (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Date Links appropriate for "oldest" persons

Hi. Per current MoS, dates should not generally be linked in articles—hence why I delinked this one—so is there anything in the MoS that I missed that advises/allows/recommends the linking of dates in regards to supercentenarians? If not, I think they should follow the consistency set by all of the other biographical articles that do not link dates. Yes, they are primarily notable for reaching quite an age, but it is not based solely on the years they were born or died. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what I wrote. No offence or disrespect intended, but it seems to me that you are going against the general consensus of delinking dates and consistency with other biographical articles by linking the dates. The notable facet about these people is their age, not the year or era in which they were born. That said, I will not push this point any further as supercentenarians are not my area of expertise, and I'll allow the remainder of the community and/or those who edit in this area to decide. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LongevityDude

what you got against longevity dude he never did anything to you, you probably never treated anyone as bad as you treated him, not even other people when they were new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.149.215 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This page is for discussing editing on Wikipedia. The above comment has nothing to do with actions on Wikipedia, but on The 110 Club. It should be taken care of there.76.17.118.157 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: are you the same sockpuppeteer on the Bob Taggart AFD page?Ryoung122 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of place of birth info from text

As you've had a hand in this guideline, perhaps you could assist in the discussion at [13]. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)