User talk:Edison: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Edison/Archive 4. |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
I have withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article to [[Human-animal marriage]] per your suggestion. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's]] [[User Talk:Lear's Fool|Fool]]''''' 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
I have withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article to [[Human-animal marriage]] per your suggestion. -- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's]] [[User Talk:Lear's Fool|Fool]]''''' 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
==You Have it Backwards== |
|||
Regarding your comment below: |
|||
Delete per nom, and for failing notability and verifiability. Lacks reliable sources needed to verify claims. Still, I agree that a list is better than individual articles. Sources other than GRG are needed. There is a very long track record in the world of spurious claims of longevity, the more so when birth records and other documentation the individual is really that old are lacking. Edison (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
This article was started, and founded, on the idea that there should be a list of "verified" supercentenarians. The GRG has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, etc. and has been accepted as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia ArbCom. Not only that, it is the main source for Guinness World Records "oldest persons" cases. Since 2001, all but one of the Guinness "oldest person" cases have come from the GRG, including for the top-ten lists. |
|||
The point of the article, however, was a matrix: a cross between "verified longevity" and "geography" that purports to show that the longevity records worldwide are fairly similar when standards of documentation are maintained. |
|||
It should be noted that JJBulten is a religious anti-science crusader who believes that humans live to 950 (ask him if he believes that...he won't deny it). His aim/goal is to delete all material on supercentenarians that is based on the scientific, mainstream position that says that age verification is essential to produce quality data. Remember, he wants to not just believe his mythology, but to mis-educate other readers as well. It's like trying to force "creationism" in school textbooks, while saying that "evolution is only a theory." |
|||
A lot of experts (the "elite") don't have the time to constantly guard Wiki articles against this kind of attack. It is important that regular Wiki editors such as yourself be made aware of this. |
|||
There is also a difference between the need for upgrading sources and whether an article is a good idea. Last I checked, the idea of "Africa" as a geographic region was still in vogue. The future will see this article re-instated, whether in a week or a year or a decade. |
|||
[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:20, 3 December 2010
|
● Archive 1: 8 May 2006-31 Dec 2006
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Kindly Advise
Forgive me just in case
I felt as if I irritated you in my sincere questions and long replies about certain cable outlets. However, thank you for your answers to my questions concerning how certain media outlets work like MSNBC. If you have anything else you would like to add, you can do it here. Willminator (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with the 1926 in jazz article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you try to expand 1924 in jazz further. I've made a good start. There some dates and info here Somebody at the AFD is trying to say the article wa snot valid that's all and should be directed to List of jazz standards in the 1920s. I need some help to prove otherwise..It should qualify for a joint DYK actually..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
MSNBC
- Hey, thanks for your replying on my talk page. I actually used most of the sources that were used and cited on the MSNBC Wikipedia article, including the right-wing Human Events one. You can blame the other administrators and Wikipedia users for citing those sources in the article. However, I see nothing wrong using those sources; whether right wing, center wing, or left wing, only in a question, argument, etc. though as everyone is entitled to their opinions. Willminator (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
I have withdrawn the nomination and redirected the article to Human-animal marriage per your suggestion. -- Lear's Fool 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You Have it Backwards
Regarding your comment below:
Delete per nom, and for failing notability and verifiability. Lacks reliable sources needed to verify claims. Still, I agree that a list is better than individual articles. Sources other than GRG are needed. There is a very long track record in the world of spurious claims of longevity, the more so when birth records and other documentation the individual is really that old are lacking. Edison (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This article was started, and founded, on the idea that there should be a list of "verified" supercentenarians. The GRG has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, etc. and has been accepted as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia ArbCom. Not only that, it is the main source for Guinness World Records "oldest persons" cases. Since 2001, all but one of the Guinness "oldest person" cases have come from the GRG, including for the top-ten lists.
The point of the article, however, was a matrix: a cross between "verified longevity" and "geography" that purports to show that the longevity records worldwide are fairly similar when standards of documentation are maintained.
It should be noted that JJBulten is a religious anti-science crusader who believes that humans live to 950 (ask him if he believes that...he won't deny it). His aim/goal is to delete all material on supercentenarians that is based on the scientific, mainstream position that says that age verification is essential to produce quality data. Remember, he wants to not just believe his mythology, but to mis-educate other readers as well. It's like trying to force "creationism" in school textbooks, while saying that "evolution is only a theory."
A lot of experts (the "elite") don't have the time to constantly guard Wiki articles against this kind of attack. It is important that regular Wiki editors such as yourself be made aware of this.
There is also a difference between the need for upgrading sources and whether an article is a good idea. Last I checked, the idea of "Africa" as a geographic region was still in vogue. The future will see this article re-instated, whether in a week or a year or a decade.