User talk:NickOrnstein

To add/remove

The following people have been removed from the list on my page. Some have considered that some are deceased, others included in this section are limbo cases, or incomplete cases. In some cases, deaths can go unnoticed, especially in LIE countries, such as Brazil. They shall remain here until further information on them and/or their age is given. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  No update in 1+ years

Name	Sex	Claimed birth	Residence	Last update

Nick, to "doubt" based on just your opinion is NOT ACCEPTABLE. If evidence has not come forward to doubt the case, it at least needs to be reinstated to the "unvalidated supercenarians" (110-112) list or the "longevity claims list" (113+). Also, how is no update since May 2010 outdated?Ryoung122 04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew 110% you would find it "biased", but this list is just my thoughts toward as to whether or not these "supercentenarians" or telling the truth. I updated the top. I thought to myself that these claimants would be back on my page. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lou Kenton

Kenton was ten years old when the war ended, he is not an era vet. As discussed before, the Spanish Civil War was not a related conflict, as it happened nearly twenty years later. Czolgolz (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|I was attempting to put a World War era veteran on the page List of surviving veterans of World War I. But I see that I have broke a rule. That is my responsibility. I will be more aware next time of the rules sir. I believe that I should have used the sandbox instead, which I certainly will next time until I'm completely sure of what I'm going to edit on an article. Not just an article with a star, but any article!!!}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Cheers, CP 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Editting tip

Instead of saving each edit and then reverting it or adding another edit, use the preview button until you have achieved what you are trying to do. If you are still having trouble use the Help link on the left hand side of the page. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Brothers

Please make sure that your usage of Band of Brothers is properly defined. Or move List of Band of Brothers veterans who died in 2007 to a more descriptive title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths

I have nominated 2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Band of Brothers veterans deaths. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive1

Please do not remove legitimate comments from the above FLC page.—Chris! _ct 02:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you have moved the above FLC a couple times now; please do not do that. I understand that you want more comments, but moving the FLC up puts it in a more prominent position, which is unfair to other FLCs. Also, please do not delete others' legitimate comments. That is against Wikipedia etiquette and talk page guidelines, which apply to WP:FLC. Lastly, I wasn't sure, but you have commented at another user's talk page that you recognize the list as self-deleting. I'm not sure what this meant; do you want the nomination to be withdrawn or something else? Please reply when you can. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

Hi, I don't know if you have seen my comments on your entry to this article's Talk page, but in summary:

• William Olin - the reference provided links to a forum reporting on a newspaper website's text. Unfortunately, the newspaper no longer has the article on their site. It does mention (at [1]) about him, but that is a single sentence. I can't find any other reliable reference to William Olin (in a book, or a reliable website).
• Robert Taggart - From the reference you cited for Bob Taggart: "Bob - a World War I key railway worker who was part of the Home Guard in World War II - was also given whisky glasses by South Lanarkshire Provost Mushtaq Ahmad." He was not a veteren - he never served in the Armed Forces, and from what I can find, he never has claimed to have served, as he was in a reserved occupation. Hence, he is not on that page.

If you think that William should be on the list, we would need *reliable* sources - one sentence in a newspaper would not be enough. If you can provide a citation we can check and agree on, I'd be quite happy for him to be included in the list of "unverified claims", but as it stands, there is not enough evidence of his claims being made.

If you can find a *reliable* source that claims that Robert served in the forces, then again we'd be able to look at it. Being in a reserved occupation does not make him a veteren, so although he may have worked for the war effort, he doesn't qualify for the page!

Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles in need of improvement

I have flagged your articles Neva Morris‎ and Matti Kekki‎ as having multiple issues.

I think they are a good start to each article, but needs improving to meet the standards expected on Wikipedia.

I do not have subject knowledge of these two individuals, so do not feel that I have the time or ability to improve the articles.

The main issues are: - there are few (or no) links to the articles from other articles; - they have no citations (yes, they have external websites to look at for information, but no direct links to the information in the articles via inline citations); - I do not feel that you have necessarily established their notability (although personally I feel that Neva Morris is more notable based on your article, in her position as one of the oldest people alive in the world); - Both articles would benefit from more sources which can be seen to be reliable (I'm not saying that the ones you mention at the moment are not reliable, but I think they need more!)

Don't be disheartened by my opinions here - I like your articles... I am looking for the best in the articles on Wikipedia (like you, I presume)!

Happy editing - if I get a chance (it's 3.24am where I am, I'm off to bed in a few mins!) I'll have a look to see if I can help improve them. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Easy COmpany Veterans

Thank you for your recent message.

I am puzzled though... If I attempt to nomiinate my article once... ... nominate it for what? Unless I know what you are thinking of, I can't advise you! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2004

The article Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2004 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article covered by Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2005 created by same author shortly after this one.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Picault

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pierre Picault, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/pierre-picault.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Pierre Picault

A tag has been placed on Pierre Picault requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Cheers, CP 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning this issue here that you might be interested in. Cheers, CP 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

Are you a member of the 110 Club?Ryoung122 07:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no sir. But i made those pages of the supercentenarian deaths by year. I just enjoy researching supercentenarians and stuff like that. I began researching them since August of last year. I really enjoy it! Don't you visit supercentenarians at their own houses right?--Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dora McCrae

I have not found any specific report mentioning her death, but I can't find a 110th birthday report for her either which suggests that she probably died sometime in the last year and her death simply went unreported. Tim198 (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

She is still alive, at least she was this summer.Ryoung122 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Joseph Lesniewski. Thank you. I like your edits on Joseph Lesniewski, but please use the edit summary so the rest of us can see what you do. Cheers. Law Lord (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

edit to Lewis Nixon (U.S. Army officer)

Your recent edit to Lewis Nixon (U.S. Army officer) looked good, except for the fact that you changed his rank in the infobox to private first class. What's up with that? --rogerd (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop rushing things

NickOrnstein (talk | contribs) (Added in parentheses "GRG" next to Gerontology Research Group internal link. And btw, on the previous edit, I meant to say that her last update was October 27, 2007, not 2009.)

If an update is for Oct 27, it should wait until Oct. 27. More than that, however, cases are more likely to be updated when a birthday occurs, so it's best to wait a few days AFTER the birthdate, not RUSH to get it moved to LIMBO. Limbo is a last-resort option, not something that should be used as soon as possible.Ryoung122 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

list of 109 year olds

Could you list all the living 109 year olds, as well as the ones already listed? 72.155.225.232 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

19th Century People

Just FYI, the 19th century includes the year 1900, So you may want change it to living Supercentenarians(I know a few of them arent 110 yet, however, they will be in only 50 days) born in the 1800s.Or you my want to include the people born in the year 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.204.87 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of people who died on their birthdays

A tag has been placed on List of people who died on their birthdays, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Redfarmer (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Page was not deleted on July 8, 2009, it was just moved to its current name without a redirect. The speedy deletion was declined and the AfD is now open for comments. Racepacket (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of people who died on their birthdays

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of people who died on their birthdays. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on their birthdays (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for editing assistance

Greetings, as you like lists of oldest persons, I'd like to know if you can help clean up articles such as "list of longest marriages" and "living national longevity recordholders." In particular, if you could "green" those active entries on the marriage list, it would be useful. Also, adding a reddish hue background to indicate "unverified" for cases like Elena Bordeian of Moldova would be useful.

Thanks Ryoung122 13:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed supercentenarian claims

Greetings,

For THIS page:

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

1. You need a "believed actual age" column

2. You might want to rename it "disputed and debunked" supercentenarian claims

3. There is a GRG list on false/exaggerated claims here:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/G2.HTM

Recreating this on Wikipedia will help people to get an idea of just how common this is.Ryoung122 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: List of Longevity Myths

Greetings,

I propose that we make a "list of longevity myths" for claims to ages above 130. For example, Thomas Parr of England at "152". Right now, the longevity myths article is already too long; I suggest we need an additional article for a list of individual longevity myth claims, or list of mythical claimants.Ryoung122 09:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Rank" Name

On the list of verified supercentenarians who died in a given year, I don't think the word "rank" is appropriate...the cases are listed in chronological order, but that doesn't mean the first person to die is more important than the second person to die. I would suggest coming up with another name, or dropping it entirely.Ryoung122 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Can you show me the source that states that Ulya Margusheva at List of disputed supercentenarian claimants could not keep her story straight? Without a reliable source we cannot make that statement. Same goes for the other living list entries. Kevin (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Its here pal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhGJs6to2w4&feature=related I added her to Longevity claims about a few weeks ago just for the heads up! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That video in no way supports that statement. That is your interpretation of what was presented, and as original research cannot appear in the article. Kevin (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even watch the video? Toward the end it says she was born in 1891. It's not original research because, by definition, it was not done first on Wikipedia.Ryoung122 22:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. It makes certain claims about birth date discrepancies, but does not characterize Margusheva as being unable to keep her story straight. That is the part that needs to be removed. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry about the Youtube, its the source! Yes along the lines its original research. Ask Rob Young what he thinks about it. Im not too concerned but you are correct. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned. You are making negative claims about living people without providing an adequate source. Do you understand why we cannot allow these kinds of unsourced claims? Kevin (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

JUST TAKE IT OFF THE LIST. i was the one who spent so much time making that whole article look nice and clean. Please just take it off before I get pissed. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, the article on Tiger Woods mentioned girlfriends outside marriage. Simply put, BLP does not prohibit all negative claims about a person; it prohibits blasphemous/libellous statements.

When someone says "I'm 125 and I gave birth at age 79"---two claims that are beyond the limits of proven scientific evidence in all history...then there must be room for some scrutiny.Ryoung122 22:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chinese/Tibetan/Japanese names

Many Asian names are written in non-Latin alphabets. As such, they may be transliterated in various forms. Tell me, how is this spelt?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03/18/content_6546104.htm

Looks like Amai Cering to me. So your comment below is incorrect...the name can be written either way.

(The lady's name isn't Amai Cering, its Arme Tsering. http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/news/Focus/2009-03/17/content_1493581.htm)

Ryoung122 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deaths of super-c claimants

Greetings,

Regarding your recent edit:

1. 14:27, 19 December 2009 (hist | diff) User:NickOrnstein ‎ (Francisco Mateus de Santana passes.)

1. Do you have a source for this?

2. How old did this person claim to be at death? If between 115-130, they should be added to the "claimants of the past" list.

3. What is the claimed date of death?

I do think that, even if a claim is dubious, their passing should be noted. For one, it removes an asterisk from the recognized world's oldest living person.

Keep up the mostly-good work. Remember that some people are nay-sayers, some are doers. And some are both.Ryoung122 23:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The report on his death is here: http://jc.uol.com.br/canal/cotidiano/nacional/noticia/2009/09/10/morre-homem-com-119-anos-199097.php --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I am presenting the editors barnstar to NickOrnstein for improving the page I created Jack E. Foley. Keep up the good work! :-) --Martin (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2010

An article that you have been involved in editing, Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2010, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2010. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Warrah (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things

Greetings Nick,

1. I noticed on your userpage you recently contacted Stuart Greenblatt to confirm that Evelyn Ralston was still alive. I was wondering if you could post a message on the WOP yahoo group mentioning this so we could use it as a source to add Evelyn Ralston to the unverified list.

2. You recently removed Katarina Marinic from the unverfied list. Am I to assume that she's deceased? or do you have reason to doubt her age? I haven't seen anything to indicate that she isn't 110 years old.

Tim198 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought the she wasn't supposed to be on there because she is from a low income economy country. Siamese Turtle said that we cant put all of them up until they have a discussion on it. I thought that you had accidentally forgot to remove her. Why did u keep her up? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Tim, I did post the message on WOP. Either somebody rejected it because they didn't believe me, or they just hadn't got to it yet. Are you an administrator on there?--Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Katarina Marinic is from a high income economy. See the list here. Thus, she should remain on the unverified list for now.

As for why your message wasn't posted, I have no idea. I am not an administrator on WOP and AFAIK Robert Young is the only one. Perhaps you should contact him on wikipedia (he posts under the name Ryoung122 here) to find out whats going on.Tim198 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't post the message because it included personal contact info, a violation of HIPAA regulations.Ryoung122 08:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since im not a WOP member, can't you contact him? The number and everything are there. Im not lying, but I did violate. It is what it is. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down!

Your edits on the longevity claims article are too fast for most people to keep up with. Badj Safaorva was, in fact, listed on the GRG list of "world's oldest claimants":

http://www.grg.org/Adams/J.HTM

That was a case that I found in a news article using Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe.Ryoung122 07:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Invite to Join

Greetings,

I suggest you join this Wiki-group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People

Ryoung122 09:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Robert! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ruby Muhammad

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ruby Muhammad. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Muhammad. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate response

Greetings,

Your rationales for reverting here are inappropriate:

1. 23:38, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2008 ‎ (Undid revision 347595133 by SiameseTurtle (talk) ur beginning to get in way. Ive contributed alot my time into this article.juststop) (top)
2. 23:36, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009 ‎ (Undid revision 347595095 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. dont worry about it. ur getting in the way.) (top)
3. 23:35, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 ‎ (Undid revision 347595136 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. your getting in the way.) (top)

A better response would be to say that if Siamese Turtle finds these flags to be misleading, he should correct them by replacing the incorrect flag with the correct one.Ryoung122 20:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok Robert. Thx 4 tip. I dont always agree with people. Im a rollercoaster; one day i will prefer one thing over the other, and the other day it may be the other way around. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning for the revert: The same issue was discussed a lot on the living supercentenarians page after issues with the flags - they have to be historically accurate, but doing that can make things confusing (eg. Born in Poland (then in the Russian Empire). There were so many that I simply did not have the time to alter all the flags (I'd have to trawl Wikipedia to find all the old flags too). You're not the only editor who has spent a lot of time on the articles and no-one has ownership of an article (see WP:OWN). As a side point, there are also some people listed on the GRG with two different dates of death, depending on whether you look at Table I or the deaths by year. Your edits removed these alternative dates of death. Until we know which date of death is correct, we should keep them both listed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So lets do it for the verified oldest people lists then. Its only fair man. Its biased to do it just for the supercentent death lists and not the others. Theres no denying. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer flags, as it makes it easier to mentally group someone or figure out which nations are represented, and by how much. I think there has been TOO MUCH emphasis on "nit-picky" details: for example, Australia didn't really become a nation until 1901, did it? I'm sure if you asked any supercentenarian who died in recent decades if they were "Australian" they would say yes, however. It's also clear what ethnic group many persons belong to. Rosa Rein was a German Jew, not Polish. Berta Rosenberg was also a German Jew. These lists are intended to give the readers some understanding. I note that since these are death lists, BLP rules no longer apply, so the rules here are actually LESS stringent than on the "list of living supercentenarians" page.Ryoung122 05:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

Any inconsistencies on GRG lists should be reported to me. It's possible that this was an error somewhere.Ryoung122 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User 218

Greetings,

Is this you?

218.109.115.35

Some of the edits I disagree with...for example, I think it is good to have a template in place even if there is only one living supercentenarian in a nation (like Australia) so that it will be easier to add back next time. Actually there is an Australian woman claimant to birth in 1896...check the WOP message archives and you'll see.

By the way, Dora McRae lives in Maine (the US), not the UK...and it's almost certain she is still alive, even if we have not seen a news report.Ryoung122 05:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that IP address user. He edits my page occasionally. Its not me at all. Thx for tip on McRae living in US. Had no idea at all. I know that Australian claimant u were talking about. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Smith

I suggest we add Charlie Smith to the examples of myths on the longevity myths page.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19791007&id=pQEjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9MwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=916,3658960

Ryoung122 03:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so too. It is a famous case. Go to the talk page, and I added about 10 more cases that claim(ed) to be 131+ years of age. Also, I found a source on WOP saying that Zaro Agha was only 97 when he died. I think you found that source? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/11890 --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Limbo list

I know that everyone on the longevity limbo list is either debunked or deceased. They all aren't mentioned in a list as being the oldest, or one of the oldest of their countries. What should I do? My head is pounding over the limbo list. I guarantee that there none of them will be mentioned evert again in an article, or anyplace. Should I remove them? Please help. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

People's Names

Nicky,

Please see:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Names

Bottom line: Don't change "Edward James Heffron" to "Ed Heffron" in the lead paragraph.

Thanks,

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Roe

Please do not make a habit of adding bad information to our articles. Your unsourced addition of the Silver Star medal to Roe's biography was entirely unfounded. Sources state specifically that he did not receive one even though he deserved it. When adding information to our articles, please do so only when you can cite it appropriately. This will help you avoid corrupting our articles unnecessarily. Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth Year for William Guarnere

Nick,

If you are going to change the information (i.e. the year of birth), then you also need to change the reference for it. You changed the year, but left the reference which says something else.

ALSO:

Why do not use the "Show preview" feature? This feature is your friend and can let you do one edit instead of four, five, or six.

In both cases:

Slow down a little and don't be in such a hurry.

Clicking "Show preview"....now...

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fortuna, I know that you are aware of the book saying he was born in 1923, which can be clearly seen here straight from the book (using Google Books): [2] Let's go with the book. A book is more reliable than a website. The guarnere website moderator had a type-o. His site isn't the MAIN source. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know for certain it is a typo? I always thought it was 1923 myself. I think I remember a story where he faked his age to get into the Citizens Military Training Camp in the summer 1938 at age 15 (which = 1923). >>(Keep the discussion thread here is okay.)<< - > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Winters

Nick,

You scolded me that:

1) Edward Heffron‎; 12:43 . . (+32) . . NickOrnstein (talk | contribs) (nicknames go in infobox)

and

You corrected somebody else that:

2) William Guarnere‎; 13:48 . . (-3) . . NickOrnstein (talk | contribs) (no sources say his middle name is Joseph)

And then;

You turn around and put "Dick" in the lead sentence, breaking both rules that you just said.

• 1) Do you have reference for this or is it "no sources say his middle name is Dick"?

• 2) Isn't "Dick" his nickname for Richard?

It seems to be okay if you do it.

I am confused.

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet everyone else would assume that his middle name is Dick, but we don't know. Yes, I was putting it for his middle name. I had had a brain fart, my bad. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be like people assuming that your parents named you: Nicholas Nick Ornstein. A very bad assumption. I always figured his middle name is something he does not particularly care for, like "Delbert", or some such. (PS: I also left you another message above, and so did somebody else.) > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Im making my final sweeps on all of the Band of brother articles. It took me months to finally get all the sources cited from every page. Except for a few. I invested alot of tears and sweat. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Albert Blithe

Nick,

Have you found something interesting about Albert Blithe in your research? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That the Band of Brothers mini series originally thought that he had died in 1948, when he really died in 1967. They got the 1948 from Blithe's social security number, the last 4 numbers read "1948". It was poor judgement by them.

Did you find anything cool Fortuna? What is your first name by the way? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not his SS#, but his Army serial#. But, no that is not it. Try comparing his medical records with his WWII jump records.... You can call me D. B. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

There is a discussion about whether Alexander Imich should be included on the list.

As a frequent contributor on the talk page (more than 10 edits with a last edit in 2010), your thoughts would be appreciated.

The discussion is here

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of supercentenarians from the Americas

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of supercentenarians from the Americas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians from the Americas. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Oldest people

Hello Nick. Please read what I have just added at Talk:Oldest people#Large changes by Tim198 about Moses Hardy and let me know if you agree to that. Thanks. Canadian Paul 02:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

What Louis Epstein's list says:

Moses Hardy 112 335 January 6,1894 December 7,2006 [some records say born 1893]

Just because he decided to go with the safer date of "1894" does NOT mean that his lists are saying that Moses Hardy really was born in 1894. It means that there are two dates to choose from, and he went with 1894 instead of 1893. Yet for Wilhelmina Kott, he went with 1879 instead of 1880. Inconsistent?Ryoung122 05:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop undoing "as of" dates

Too often, news media INcorrectly assume that someone becomes the "oldest" on their birthday, when in fact they become the oldest when they become the oldest (whether due to the death of someone older, or they outlives an historic figure). As such, we should WANT to use fact-dates. For example, in the Venere Pizzinato-Papo article. Don't write the facts as if they have always been that way.Ryoung122 00:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Swedish WP

Hi, We appreciate help updating articles at the swedish WP, but please consider we can have different inclusion critera there, than consensus has made the criteria at certain articles at enWP. We may value references different than what is the consensus here, etc. Are you learning swedish, or is it machine translated text in your edit comments? If you're machine translating text, you may miss some of the message in a text - I think I've made the text clearer now. Hepcat65 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So, according to the Swedish wikipedia, if Swedish authorities are reliable, then lets add unvalidated supercentenarians to the list from other countries. Its only fair. It shows a bias if cases are only accepted by Swedish authorities. See my point? Btw, it's machine translated, so other Swedes will understand, obviously. :D Also, im glad that Sweden finally has a supercentenarian ever since May 15, 2008 after the oldest Swede's death (Astrid Zachrison). And of course, nobody knows the whereabouts of Saro Dursun yet, unfortunately. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "Visa mig källan på GRG webbplats som säger att du bara kan lägga till folk om en nyhetssajt säger att deras ålder är rätt utan att godkänna det" Please, the GRG doesn't own swedish WP. Swedish wp is free to evaluate all references. I've added "or other reliable sources" to the other validators, and we at swedish wp are good at evaluate the reliability of swedish sources, but perhaps not all foreign - but you and other users at sw wp are of course free to suggest more unvalidated cases if you have other reliable sources, & have time. But I suggest you learn more swedish if you plan to help more, since, again: fine tuned messages can be lost in machine translation. Hepcat65 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Former cristian

Hi, may I know why you removed former [3] as the template name states ? I was thinking to use the template --Jor70 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Former sounds like before, or in the past. Why not just plain Christian? Former sounds like it would mean u were a Christian before, and now you changed your religion. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That the point!, the user changed their religion. is in the past. the template name is former not current. If you are not a former (you still are) then just choose any other of the multiple templates available --Jor70 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

My 1st response is, why change your religion, but...it's your decision. Why don't you just make a template saying what religion you are instead of saying what you are not, like not being a Christian? Example (I'm not saying that you are one): This user is a Catholic.

I like the layout of the template that you made by the way. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying is another question, this specific template is supposed to show a former christian, please roll it back. If any user prefer instead show his current religion he may choose other template --Jor70 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Berrian

Belongs on the false/exaggerated list. She may claim 115, but the 1910, 1920, and 1930 censuses all agree that she is no older than 104, at most.Ryoung122 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Supercentenarians who died in 2010

Can you explain why you don't think we should be able to sort the table? How does it benefit the page? SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change that table, you should do it for the rest. Lack of consistency if it were only the 2010 supercentenarian death page. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would do it for all of them (and I think it should be), but I simply don't have the time to edit all those pages. It takes a lot of time. If everyone chips in though, we might be able to do it. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually did go back and go through each person and do that, heck i even added the 0s, such as 110 yeas, 079 days. I spend weeks on it. And then Robert? said something and then I changed it back to the way it is now.

To tell you the truth Siamese, I really like the way it is now. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually give a legitimate reason why we shouldn't make the table sortable though? Wikipedia is about improving pages, not bringing them all down to the lowest common denominator. I can't quite believe this is being dragged out so long. Making the table sortable only adds value to the page as people can order it how they choose. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

INCONSISTENCY! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about making articles as bad as other pages, it's about improving the articles. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oldest military veterans

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Oldest military veterans. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please e-mail me at ryoung122@yahoo.com

Now that school is out, I have time to discuss the 109-year-old cases.Ryoung122 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just is unsatisfied with you changing the way it is as I am. Why should I only be blocked when you are doing the same exact? I'm pissed. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Elbert Redvers Blades

Where is the report on him from yesterday? I haven't been able to find a report on him since his 107th birthday in April 2009. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, if you see here: [4] youll see that the 4th article from the top says Jun. 17, 2010. My mistake because it was actually from April 2009. It threw me off.

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese supercentenarians

HEllo Nick

I've already discussed this subject, but I don't remeber if it was with you. Portuguese districts which are equivalent to regions have no flags. The flags which you have posted in the article belong to the municipalities, which are too little to be called regions. Some people live in the municipality with the same name of the district (i.e. they live in the district capital) others don't. For instance Maria de Jesus was from Ourém with this flag Pt-vno3.png. If you want to continue with district you cannot add flags. If you think a flag is important you must change to municipalities.Japf (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Oldest military veterans. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. EW_ikist^Talk 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

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).

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

---

Request reason:

global block — I don't vandilize. If you look at the contributions I made, basically I only edit longevity relate articles. I enjoy editing them. I have had this account for a year and a few months. Vandilism is not my game. The reason why I used a proxy was because my internet hasnt been working for the past several days. A proxy could only work. Can you eliminate my punishment that expires on 11 October 2010? [I realise it could have expired in April 2013; Im thankful for cutting it down]. Can you please let it expire today? What would be the cons if I were to edit on a proxy when im not trying to commit a crime? Thank you.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked directly: if this is an IP autoblock, you will need to post the request as instructed when you try to edit. If you need an exemption, check WP:EXEMPT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 26 June 2010 (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.

Gladys Horney death

Why did you not report this to the WOP group, if you knew about it July 13? Please get on the team, the WOP group, NOT Wikipedia, is the place where messages are used to process information. Anything on Wikipedia can be changed by someone else, but if you post the message to the WOP group it will go through to all the 950-odd supercentenarian-interested persons, and the message will be archived.

I also may have added this case to Table E sooner if I had known she had passed away.Ryoung122 09:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

immigrants

I think the immigrants should be listed in the country they were born in, not the other way around. 74.249.136.229 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends. If we are making a list of living persons, then the place they reside is more important. If we are making a list of records by birth, then the place of birth takes precedence.Ryoung122 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Frederica Sagor Maas

Greetings,

This woman was a feminist/woman's rights advocate. She preferred to go by "Frederica Sagor Maas," not "Frederica Maas." Please change back any edits you made concerning this.Ryoung122 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Breuning

I did NOT make those Walter accounts, or the ones on the 110 club, ben has no right to ban me for something I did NOT do, he never even presented evidence yet refuses to listen to arguments in my defense, i'm NOT an asshole OR a troll. Longevitydude (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wont step in the frying pan, but he did present quote unquote "evidence". He said that you and Keith Cody had experience with myspace accounts. And 'they' decided that you were a part of it.

Now, with your demanding response and much other explanations, to me you are honest. It's the matter of people gaining your trust on the 110 Club. It must suck. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never had a myspace account, and obviously someone was pretending to be me, but unlike whoever was using those accounts, I didn't know how to upload pictures on facebook, my mother always helped me do that, I recently got a macintosh computer and found a way to put pictures on facebook, but I did NOT create the 110 club socks, or the walter accounts. Im NOT an asshole or a troll. Longevitydude (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTCy

Nellie Vallery and "no updates" within past year? cases

Greetings,

I prefer giving a two-year window for unvalidated super-c claims, since the point of the unvalidated lists is to be an addendum, to list other cases that "may" be out there. Sometimes, they're not. But we don't want to miss a case. Do we have a list of "no updates within the past year" cases?Ryoung122 04:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We should have on the main list a section titled "No updates within the past year". Good points. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Naomi Conner

I wouldn't add Naomi Conner back. Census documents are government records, and considered "official." Lists of addresses, such as the US Public Records Index, are unofficial. I would add Gertrude Weaver back.

Ryoung122 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Longest marriages

The problem with the Kuykendalls is that the newspaper that has reported on their wedding anniversaries is only available online via the Google News Archive. Google only puts them online after 2 years. The evidence we have are reports on their 78th and 79th wedding anniversaries. We should hopefully get a report on their 80th anniversary (from February 2009) in February 2011. Until then we only have Twitter updates confirming they are still alive, which isn't strictly suitable for Wikipedia, but I think we can be sure they were still alive as of the 81st anniversary. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't report deaths if you don't have confirmation

We don't know for sure if Mineno Yamamoto or others have died. We can say, however, that we have no confirmation they are living within the past year.Ryoung122 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this is completely unacceptable per WP:BLP. A posting on a Yahoo group is not a reliable enough source to declare someone dead, and certainly not one that only says that might be dead. You've been around long enough to know Wikipedia's policies - if I see something like this again, I'll be taking it directly to WP:ANI. Canadian Paul 04:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't "dumb down" the language

I noticed you replaced the word "emigrant" with "out of." I don't think that's an appropriate change. If you don't know what "emigrant" means, look it up. And if you do know what it means, then there's no reason to change it.Ryoung122 06:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I thought it was bad as well. It applied with European supercentenarians, and now Italian supercentenarian pages, thanks to Paolo S. I thought it would be good; and I had a 2nd thought. This isn't simple wikipedia. IP 218 (I think) undid Pascar's revision of "out of or in" and Pascar undid his revision. Pascar seems pretty defenseful when it comes to Italy...maybe too defenseful. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why "in" and "out of" aren't correct? Anyway a section "Italian Supercentenarians" with only a sub-section about emigrants isn't correct, because Italians are divided "in Italy" and "emigrants"/"out of Italy", so 2 sections... And it is valid for Europeans, Germans...--Pascar (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Like for Prussia, it was 1 state and now is divided and became a bunch of states. Are there regions in Italy that used to be a region and became part of someplace else? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pascar, this is the English Wikipedia, NOT the Italian Wikipedia. I disagree. We should use the words immigrant/emigrant where appropriate.Ryoung122 18:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you report a table of Italians in Italy under the title Italians it isn't correct because Italian emigrants are Italian. It is matter of correct language. So under Italians you should report either all Italians (in and out of Italy) or 2 separated subsections. About Prussia: you should consider modern Germany, with modern borders, not German Empire. So they were born out of modern Germany. Consider that German Empire was a different entity with a different flag too (white instead of yellow). A person who was born in Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine or Silesia (is German citizen, so German supercentenarian) and lives out of modern Germany (Rosa Rein was born in Silesia, German Empire, now Poland, and died in Switzerland, but she was German citizen) is out of Germany, but she didn't emigrate from modern Germany (Federal Republic of Germany, with yellow colour in its flag). So Rosa Rein was a German supercentenarian (because German citizen), was out of modern Germany, but she didn't emigrate from modern Germany. I repeat, It is just a matter of correct language, I hope you are understanding my point.--Pascar (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You should answer in this discussion. Have you understood what I tried to explain you?--Pascar (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aosta Valley was created in 1948 (from Piedmont), Molise was separated from Abruzzo in 1963. Then some municipalities passed from Trentino-Alto Adige to Veneto, and from the Marche to Emilia-Romagna. Finally many municipalities passed to France from Piedmont, and to former Yugoslavia from Friuli-Venezia Giulia. I prefer to report only current borders in the table, and notes with past borders, you can see here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercentenari_italiani. I don't report the foreign region of birth, but just country and city (for example see Johanna Meyer and Lidia Ruggini).--Pascar (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not like Prussia, where it doesn't exist anymore. All 20 of them are current regions in Italy, Piedmont, Aosta Valley, and the rest. I hope that we are on the same page of not keeping cities. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In Italy there was a region called "Abruzzi e Molise" that doesn't exist any more: now there are 2 separated regions, that are Abruzzo and Molise. For Domenica di Tomasso I wrote she was born in Abruzzo, so I reported current region. Venere Pizzinato was born in County of Tyrol (one of the counties of Austria-Hungary), now it is divided in 3 parts: Trentino-Alto Adige//Südtirol (Italy), the Austrian state of Tyrol (Austria) and a small part that is in current Veneto. But I reported she was born in Trentino-Alto Adige//Südtirol with a note about Austria-Hungary.--Pascar (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just put former regions first, and then in parentheses what region it was broken up into. Remove the cities. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For semplicity of tables it is better in this way according to me. I think for German and other Supercentenarians too.--Pascar (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be more understanding if the cities were removed. To me it's way too much and complex. Cities need to go.

The List of Italian supercentenarians is the only one out of the 18 country supercentenarian articles that go "beyond"; this article passes the largest place by making it "more work". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that structure of my table (by birth and by death) was already used for other articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_people_by_nation --Pascar (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I never even payed attention to your table's "structure", or on the IT of that matter, in case you didn't know. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't understand, I mean another person used that structure before me.--Pascar (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Longevity myths

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Longevity myths, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. JJB 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is being discussed. JJB 20:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Longevity claims, you may be blocked from editing. JJB 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a compromise revert proposal at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. Please feel free to join that discussion. If you have specific edits to these two articles not covered by the compromise attempts, we can agree those out at the mediation or at the article talk. However, reverting again would delete many new sources, key date corrections, and other users' input, so please cite your specific concerns instead. JJB 21:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the above-noted ANI discussion I've made a general comment about edit warring. WP:3RR is not an entitlement, and I will block editors engaged in edit warring, whether they have breached 3RR or not. Do not revert - discuss instead. If discussion fails, take it to dispute resolution. Reverting is not an option I'm prepared to accept at this point. TFOWR 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed claims

List of disputed supercentenarian claimants: Nick, I've listed a number of problems at this article's talk. Aside from obvious policy problems that will need serious work as soon as deletionists wake up, there is significant scope overlap between this article, "withdrawn" longevity claims, and "controverted" longevity traditions (which also includes the overadvancement and double-life sections of that article). I trust you are familiar enough with the policy to have a first go at addressing these, in that you are a primary maintainer of this one and Ryoung122 is mostly off-wiki lately. Please let me know how you think the scope overlap problem should be solved, as it affects all 3 articles, and probably more. Thanks. JJB 17:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge proposals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to discuss

Nick, I'd like to ask the core questions briefly here, because they need answers if you wish to maintain the article scope you allude to, which I believe is contrary to policy. Further, you are starting to employ wholesale reversion without resorting to the talk page, which can be considered WP:EDITWAR (if it were repeated I would be likely to give you a formal warning). This is not a problem if you are ready to discuss and defend your proposed rules as the interested editor (other editors are not involved right now). Here are my questions.

1. Do you believe that living unverified supercentenarians are notable but that dead unverified supercentenarians under 115.0 are nonnotable, and how do you defend your scope on this point against a charge of contradicting the dictum "notability is not temporary"?
2. Do you believe we should not distinguish between cases where a source explicitly names a year or age, and cases where a source does not do so explicitly (permitting a choice between two possible years or two possible ages), and how do you defend your style on this point against a charge of contradicting "stick to the sources"? (For instance, as you know, if source says "1890–2010", age may be 119 OR 120; if source says "d. 2010 age 120", birth year may be 1890 OR 1889. I propose using "119+" and "c. 1890", the shorter-term assumptions, in these cases, with use of "+" and "c." restricted to these specialized meanings. If, however, we were also to use "119+" to include cases where source reads "b. 01-1890 d. 02-2009", the sources are not represented consistently and one cannot tell which of the variations they actually said; I proposed using "119" and not "119+" in this case, to indicate that age was known to be between 119.0 and 120.0.)
3. Do you believe that a claim to an older age, by a supercentenarian verified at a younger age, is notable in itself, independent of the notability for being a supercentenarian, and how do you defend your scope on this point against a charge of contradicting "tiny-minority views should not be included"? This one is a bit fuzzier, because you could claim that it was notable that GRG once recognized the older age, but the fact that they no longer do (which is almost always the case with these) rather removes the POV from having any prominent adherents and thus from needing any weight attributed in the lists. There is also a WP:TITLE problem, in that the scope of "List of disputed supercentenarian claimants", by its title, may or may not be inferred to include verified supercentenarians whose claims to being 110 are not disputed; but that argument devolves into the same question of whether the older claim should be included when the younger verified claim exists.

Now you rightly asked why what you call "these ridiculous edits" must go forward rather than my attention being diverted to, say, country-based lists. Well, side cases would not be addressable until there are objective policy-based scopes in place based on foundational questions like the above. The basic problem is as follows. You can easily determine whether WP includes a verified case because it will appear in exactly one article on a short list: the articles for those who died in various years, and the first table in the living article. You also know objectively exactly which article to look at by the objective deathdate standard. With unverified cases, inside and outside editors alike have never agreed on how to objectively categorize them into articles, partly because the historical question is wide-open, and partly because the cases have many other quirks. Names have been haphazardly inserted into, and deleted from, "myths", claims, disputeds, unverified or pending livings under 113.0, and sometimes the country-based or other articles without being added to one of the more foundational articles. Even if the only rule was to file by lowest claim on the arbitrary 113/115/131 rules, there would still be the naming problems that look askance at claims as they move from cutoff to cutoff. My merge proposal pointed out the redundancies among three of these articles, as well as the recentism in the disputeds that ignores cases like K. FitzGerald. An unverified claim might appear in several or no articles on the list, the list is not formally defined, and there are no objective scopes or borders to categorize and divide up the territory. As long as these problems remain and relative silence ensues on my solutions, I will need to press forward with correcting them. You may discuss here or at the articles. JJB 18:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

1. We discussed on the living supercentenarians talk page about what to do with 113-year-olds by adding them here. When they die, they are to be removed. In my opinion, I think it should remain this way. We shouldn't add 113 and 114 year olds on List of living supercentenarians because that is when it starts to become "less believable".

2. "C" stands for circa, which means estimated. We could change that by typing both of their possible year of births. C. seems bias, now that I realize it. It's basically a coin flip.

3. ? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. But this repeats the noncompliance issues on 1 and 3, I think.

1. I take it you also delete 110-112 unverifieds from the living list when they die? Whether or not, basic WP:N is that if someone is notable (listable) when alive they are notable when dead. To perpetuate the idea that "believability" is a significant determinant that should be embodied in the arbitrary number 113 is to impose a WP:POV, to supply an WP:OR standard that appears in no source, and to distinguish "WP:CLAIMs" as less believable. Why not just merge the whole unverified list (not including the "pending", which have an objectively different status) into longevity claims? Would that be OK? Then GRG can look at the 110-112 sections of (zero-document) claims just as they did the prior list, and we can remove this believability partition, and you can let the 113+ sections of claims run amok freely. I don't know how you can say someone at 112y364d is a supercentenarian and the next day they are not necessarily one anymore when no source data has changed. (I also have argued for using age-at-update, just as GWR does, which may help matters.) Even if that idea is an anti-policy "consensus", which I would doubt, it would still fall when faced with valid policy arguments.
2. I will be happy to implement this.
3. This question is about your reversion of the redundant disputeds. If they already are supercentenarians according to all sources, that is their notability; they don't have additional notability as disputeds. Further, allowing them in multiple articles creates forking, several cases of which I noted while editing: Pawel Parniak (among others) is in claims at one sourced age and is in disputeds with an additional unsourced age, which is contradictory. Martha Graham was verified according to the disputeds article but was not in the appropriate verified sorted-by-death article, which is contradictory. The scope failure and redundancy causes these contradictions. To put the question another way, to prevent forking, everyone should have a "main" listing IMHO: why is it necessary to retain them here when their main listing should be in another supercentenarian article? Why is it necessary to note them as supercentenarians in a main place and, if the older-age claim is listable, not to list the older-age claim in the main place but to require it to be listed in a forked location? Thank you for your consideration. JJB 20:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Based on your deletion of Bua Maharaj, Santacruz, and Magee, I take it you count them as "true" disputes while some of the "claims" that have differing dates (per "proximate records") are not counted as the same kind of "true" disputes. Can you provide an objective criterion for what makes a date variation a dispute and what makes it just an ignorable difference (as has been done even for some verified cases)? If you are not able to answer these questions, I don't know how I could defend your edits against the policies already cited. JJB 03:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say something. The thing about zero document 110-112 age claims is that I think many of them turn out to be true anyways. I think that if somebody like Marianna Ostrowska or Sudhakar Charturvedi, who started claiming their age before 113 should actually stay on the "List of living supercentenarians". But for people who begin to claim their age 113+ should probably go straight to longevity claims. DHanson317 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hanson, but you demonstrate the basic problem by saying "I think" many turn out true, "I think" they should stay or should go. There are no sources for your approach. But let's do this on a WP:BRD basis. Please answer my concerns about your revert at the disputeds article.

@Nick, please reply, thanks. JJB 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JJB 00:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Eva McConnell and Katie McMenamin

Hi Nick, I wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tags from these two articles. I appreciate your commitment to fact checking, and I think you are doing valuable work, but speedy deletion is probably not appropriate in these cases - it is really intended for situations where no neutral editor is likely to disagree with the deletion. These articles contain reasonable claims of significance (oldest woman in country XXX) and even have independent sources to back up the claim - strongly in the case of McMenamin and more weakly in the case of McConnell. They shouldn't be deleted without at least giving the community a chance to investigate and form an opinion on the strength of the claims made, and the appropriate future of the article. For example, Katie McMenamin could conceivably be thought notable enough for there to be an article about her for just being widely but wrongly thought to be the oldest woman in Ireland.

Anyway, the upshot of all this is that speedy deletion is probably not the best way to go for these articles and any similar ones you come across - if you do feel they need to be deleted, I suggest nominating them at WP:AFD and letting the full deletion discussion process take its course.

Thparkth (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you are also speedy-tagging some articles about people who's only claim to significance is that they have lived to age 100. I actually kind of agree with you here, but I'm not sure whether or not people view this as a "credible claim of significance" which is all that is needed to avoid speedy deletion under A7 (the criteria that you are presumably alluding to).

I have started a discussion thread here to find out what the consensus is. You might like to share your opinion there. In the mean time, would you consider holding off tagging these articles for speedy deletion, maybe for a day or so until the discussion thread gets some other people's input? Of course you could certainly nominate them at AFD instead in the mean time...

Thparkth (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will hold off. Thanks for agreeing with me. This AFD deletion has changed since the last time I proposed to delete an article. It's all confusing to me. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

So after a couple of days discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, two things have happened. First, I've come around to the idea that articles about people who have no claim of significance at all other than being >100 are good candidates for speedy deletion, even when reliably sourced. Unfortunately the other thing that has become clear is that there is no consensus for doing so among the speedy deletion experts. For this reason I would suggest playing safe and using AfD - speedy deletion is really only for uncontroversial deletions, and there's no real urgency to getting these deleted. Thparkth (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans

Hi, If it is your intent to re-nominate for deletion, please open up a new afd. Jarkeld (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the same issue, and wanted to also say that you have to go through the entire procedure in WP:AfD, including for instance adding the page to the log, otherwise the request will be ignored.--Muhandes (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Just letting you know that proposal still was not done according to the procedure in WP:AfD. It's pretty simple to follow, but unfortunately if not all steps are followed, the request is typically ignored. If you were simply planning to do the other steps a bit later, ignore this. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and completed three apparent malformed nominations as well as created four more nominations based on your prior speedies:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living men
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie McMenamin
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva McConnell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Dolan Quinn
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dolan (centenarian)

JJB 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John. I had trouble trying to nominate deletion on these pages. Also, for James Dolan, I meant to say that he was "not" notable in the outside world, rather than too notable. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. While we're talking about it, could you please explain or refactor this comment? Thank you. JJB 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you showed me an example rather than typing your opinion in an "essay" format, I would understand it easier; summing it up in less words. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

famous people

nickornstein, why did you undo my edit?its true, leiladenmark and frederika sagor mass are both famous people, and it makes sense to highlight that fact. 60.50.135.20 (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, that is an opinion. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

List of Oldest Living Men

Hi Nick,

You deleted this case (and many others) with no explanation.

|-

- |Friedrich Volmer

- |13 September 1902

- |121 years, 247 days

- |Germany

This was a part of a "Rinaldi died in 2009" edit, but this doesn't look like Rinaldi.Ryoung122 00:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: It looks like you added this case back, but why did you delete Lourenco Bossi of Brazil?

This looks like you are editing too fast, without consideration. Each case removed should have an explanation for removal. Mr. Bossi is on the GRG website:

http://www.grg.org/Centenarians.html

and we are in contact with his family. Ergo, reason to believe he's still alive.

By the way, if this page gets deleted, it's still useful as a "project" page. Originally I didn't like it, but once it was divided into sections, I'm liking it more. It can help, for example, in coming up with who is France's oldest man.Ryoung122 00:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

People I'm sure will be asking for a source, Robert. Is it possible you can post a message or something on the WOP? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I already posted the GRG link, did you check it out?Ryoung122 04:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

British cases

I think some of those "citation needed" cases are on the Oldest Britain's website. Are those considered "validated"?DHanson317 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the "big shots", cases are only considered validated if they approved by Louis Esptein's list, are somwhere on the GRG site, or has been recognized by another international body. In my opinion, we need to wait. Great job finding those "hidden" cases (Especially that 111-year-old Swiss being unverified, by the way). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong: this is a very poor job. First off, you SHOULD tag a case as "citation needed" if you believe the case needs a citation, but does not have one. In some cases, articles have been given as much as a "YEAR" to find a citation. Please, people, some people have lives to live, jobs to do, this rush-rush-rush mentality is NOT helpful.

Second, cases like Constance Young or Emma Colyer have already been accepted by the GRG, even if not updated on the "as of 2007" lists. We have internal lists. You can figure out which cases we have from the WOP group. I personally think that the WOP group should be citable. Each Yahoo! group is managed by the group owner, and should be judged separately.

Finally, the UK cases are on the "oldest in Britain" website, maintained by GRG-UK correspondent Andrew Holmes...the same person. Why is that site not reliable?!!!!Ryoung122 18:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. What 111-year-old Swiss case?Ryoung122 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On the "Oldest in Britain" website, it has "accepted" cases that are still considered pending, i.e. Maria Pettigrew. And would that mean Margaret Cooke is validated and can be added as a verified living supercentenarian on the List of living supercentenarians page? DHanson317 (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your user page violates WP:FAKEARTICLE

Your user page looks (except for the userboxes on the right) like a Wikipedia list article. I'm fairly certain this violates WP:FAKEARTICLE, a part of Wikipedia's policies on user pages. I believe that you need to either move that information to a subpage temporarily (if you're planning on moving it into main space), or remove it. Let me know if I'm not understanding or missing something--I'm watchlisting, so you can reply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My article is sort of like a project. It has always been on here since October of last year. I've had no complaints. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that; however, per WP:NOT, such projects aren't really allowed (i.e., WP isn't a webhost). Nonetheless, it's not particularly harmful. Could you at least add {{Userpage}}, {{Userpage blue}}, or {{Userpage otheruse}} to the top of the page? I think that would at least make it clear that this is a personal project, not an encyclopedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition of the template! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jan Goossenaerts

I would like your opinions on the afd. Longevitydude (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity claims

Was it your intention to delete Ula Margusheva with this edit? --Dangermouse600 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. She claimed 125, then another document said she was 118. A lady in a report who interviewed her said her "age varies from document to document." She is on Disputed supercentenarian claimants. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

List of notable Irish centenarians

Check out this new page I have been working on. Do you have any sources for additional info? --Rye1967 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article in my opinion needs to be deleted. It is OR. There is no source (listed) that shows, for example, Annie O'Donnell is the 10th oldest Irish ever. If there was a group that verified Irish centenarians, that would be fine, because their ages would be for sure certain. When Ireland gets a few more verified supercentenarians, I suggest making a list titled "List of Irish supercentenarians". For now, we need to hold off. Margaret Kelly is dead by the way, see here [5]. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nyleptha Roberts

The article Nyleptha Roberts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivia, Fails WP:GNG, practically no reliable sources, WP:NOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

Please participate in a discussion about users with conflicts of interest editing the topic of longevity. Your name has been mentioned here. JJB 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Last North American veterans by war listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last North American veterans by war. Since you had some involvement with the Last North American veterans by war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People/Oldest_(known)_living_people_per_country

I think you did a great job on this, but I still think it was more informative when it was the top 5 oldest men instead of just 3. Longevitydude (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I keep it that way because the large gaps of age in certain countries between 2 people. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Rather than making spurious allegations of bullying, please try making a substantive contribution to the discussion at User talk:SiameseTurtle#Flags_on_lists_of_old_people, and explain why you believe that the list of supercenternarians should be an exception to numerous points of MOS:FLAG which they breach.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lists of known Band of Brothers veterans' deaths by year

Template:Lists of known Band of Brothers veterans' deaths by year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Help?

I want to get Frank Buckles article to GA for his birthday Febuary 1 when he turns 110 but i need some help. I thought you would interested since you work on alot of articles about longevity. Spongie555 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

German emigrant cases

Why did you remove those German emigrant cases. Shouldn't we include those cases of people who was born in what was then Germany at the time? DHanson317 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here [6] and on several other articles, people agreed that we list cases under a country under todays standards. We don't list Fannie Buten as born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, rather Ukraine. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgot my action. Austrian emigrant cases (which part of a different country today) are still listed on List of Austrian supercentenarians. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War Veterans RIP

Thanks for the last update. Now I don't have to do it. Czolgolz (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Everything is all up to date on the death lists as well. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

HAPPY 17TH BIRTHDAY

I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR BIRTHDAY, ONLY 113 MORE YEARS AND YOU MIGHT BE ONE OF THE FIRST MEN TO UNDISPUTEDLY REACH 130, GOOD LUCK OLD BUDDY OLD PAL. Longevitydude (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Aaron! Just trying to survive the day. XD --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's very unlikely. By the time you're a super it will be fairly common. Unless there's a societal collapse or failure to progress, you lack proper placement in the correct set/class, etc., by the time you are middle aged there should be at least millions of centenarians and thousands of supers, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands and hundreds, respectively, now. By the time you are super (in the third decade of the 22nd century), aging itself should have become treatable so being a super should be no tremendous deal. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Incumbent v. "Current"

You've reverted me with no edit summary. Please read my rationale here and respond. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Noting this is the same as the next thread, they might be joined but leaving as is. He doesn't appear to be able to understand such conceptual distinctions, or is just asserting ownership without thinking at all. The distinction is actually between the incumbent or current title holder where title is oldest living person and holder of a record, i.e. the last one to break a record. It appears NO may have a learning disability, so addressing this is outside my current profile of use, as I'm not using my named account for a while and that's probably what would be required, but the rest of this page speaks for itself so somethings likely to happen anyway. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest living people by nation

I do not know how, but somehow my edit switched the whole article back to a version that was months older. I was only trying to edit Ejub Vučkić (see description at history). Thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.83.187 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. And thanks for explaining to me the reasoning. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be violating WP:OWN on this. The changes I made corrected a flat wrong confusion between record breaking and current title holding as well as other improvements I spent some time on and which you deleted without comment, doubtless because they were done by IP. I'm sure you're a great editor, that people are good and great generally but when you peel that cover, this is what you see, the petty, small-minded, etc. As the above shows, I'm not the only one who has tried to correct this but you senselessly keep reverting other peoples work and violating the named policy. I see that you are not quite an adult, seem to recall a similar case in the past, perhaps this same thing, and obviously it's a pattern on this page. Stop and give some serious consideration to what you're doing, this is an adult venue. Realize now what I perceived as something else is probably just immaturity. Nonetheless nothing good will come of it if you persist in asserting ownership rather than stewardship. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. 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.

Please refrain from nominating articles for deletion without notifying

the article's creator. Even better, also notify all of us who are members of the WOP WikiProject on the project's talk page. We need to find a way to treat one another with respect and kindness. Notifying one another about AfD's in the area covered by our wikiproject would be a very good start. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

I am confused as to this edit and this edit and their edit summaries "not validated". There are several articles that can "validate" the birthday of Mr. Buckles and are included in the article, hence my confusion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gerontology Research Group validates supercentenarians' ages (110+). He is not validated yet. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK...but what you removed had nothing to do with that group. It was just confirmed information (via a Washington Post article) in a template. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Helen Netherton

Thank you for providing an edit summary. Even more importantly, than you for providing a reliable source. David in DC (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring to replace reliable sources with an unreliable one

Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started this thread at WP:ANI. David in DC (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of ArbCom Decision Requested

I opened the AN/I thread as a lesser alternative, but there, the thread was "deferred" with instructions to proceed to Arb Enforcement. So I've started this enforcement request. I seek an admonition and warning of increasingly stringent sanctions for future edit-warring. Please participate. I'm sure your view differs from mine, and, as you've seen me type before, I have no corner on the wisdom market and sometimes am moved to doubt if I even have a stall there. I appreciated your response to my request for a citation on the Helen Netherton edit and truly wish you had continued that nearly unique example of collaboration. But, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. And so we come to this. I'm sure you hold my "conributions" to the longevity wikiproject in fairly low regrd. I regret that. But, if wikipedia is to work, the current patterns in the WikiProject must be rechannelled. ArbCom instructed us to seek guidance from more experienced editors. We'll likely get it now, in a way we haven't in my intitial complaint about RY posting a notice of Census data, on the RS Noticeboard, in my MfD nomination. Our editing history and patterns will both be subject to scrutiny. At least one of us, and maybe both, will wind up chastened. I'm pretty sure both of us will draw conclusions about how wikipedia works (or doesn't) at the end of the AE process. With luck, Wikipedia will emerge stronger, whether the findings are that I'm trigger-happy, you're obstinant, or both. In any event, I wish you good fortune and growth, young man. As you've seen me say to LongevityDude, I fear your zeal often outstrips your judgment. But that's not necessarily a permanent condition. Best regards, David in DC (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

List_of_disputed_supercentenarian_claimants

Nick, there is a discussion at Talk:List_of_disputed_supercentenarian_claimants#Notability about my reasons for removing entries sourced only to the WOP Yahoo group. Perhaps you could care to join in there rather than just reverting changes. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please knock it off

Please consider the first rule of holes: when you find you're in one, for heaven's sake, stop digging. Unless you're intent on going out in a blaze of "glory". I beseech thee, stop behaving in an indefensible manner. The real-time wikistalking you've engaged in tonight is not proving anything but incorrigibility. David in DC (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of Wiki editors would agree that these new "rules" are ridiculous. I am getting support from many others. I, along with others, have survived Bulten's reign. Bulten tried the same thing, removing WOP citations. But he failed, and got banned for one year. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)