User talk:Ryoung122/Archive4

Mother Jones

I am puzzled why you removed:

• Elliott J. Gorn, Mother Jones: The Most Dangerous Woman in America, 2001, ISBN 0-8090-7094-4

...from the Mother Jones article, describing your action as removing "biased POV edits." Although i'm not familiar with the book, the reference to Mother Jones as "The Most Dangerous Woman in America" was a common one. I believe that her supporters were not offended by such a description; they were working people who felt abused by the economic system, and they relished such a claim. This is not to say that your edit was improper; i'd have to read the book to know more. But if your edit resulted from use of this phrase, and for no other reason, then it was (in my view) mistaken about the general perception of that description. I say this as a strong Mother Jones supporter and fan.

best wishes, Richard Myers 19:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Cambefort

I do not gainsay he was a french soldier during WWI ; I just wanted to add that he was not one of the last "official" French WWI vet : this last point may be important cuz there is not a while that the French government has approved a state funeral for the last "official one" to die... and I think the reader has to be aware of it, that's all. Sincerily. Paris75000 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

A request for consensus about what to do about some changes you recently reverted has been posted at Talk:Matt Sanchez. Thanks, Beland 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldest people

Hi, I see you've reverted my changes with the comment "current format has better visual appeal; Wikipedia is not paper". I'm trying to understand but all I can make of this is a statement of personal taste, and I'm not convinced. Can we try to compare arguments? To me there are two disadvantages to the old format: 1. it contains duplicate information (the "To" column, saying when someone lost the status of oldest person, is always — necessarily so — equal to the person's day of death); 2. it actually is less appealing to me because the information fills more space and there are many line breaks. It looks more tidy in my version. I'm therefore rather surprised at your change. Thanks for a reply. – SeL 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that if we did the table in 'real-time' and not reconstructed history, we would have people like Charlotte Benkner lose the title when someone older was found, not when they died. Thus, it could technically be different.

Second, I realize it is not absolutely necessary; however, I do think a little redundancy is OK. Visually, if the cases are too close together, then their time with the title looks insignificant.R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you have to create my user page just in order to respond? (My talk page did exist.) I was going to create it eventually, but in my own tome. How do I get it deleted again now (not just empty but deleted)? Such thoughtlessness really makes me angry. I've copied your comment here and I'm asking you to continue the debate on this page.

I was aware of the theoretical argument you made. You say yourself that it doesn't apply as you it is a retroactive version. Your visual argument I think I understand. Are you saying that with your version each table entry is a two-liner whereas in mine some entries take up one line and some two? – SeL 11:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've since found out how to request my user page to be deleted, so I'm no longer looking for guidance on that. – SeL 11:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's worked already. – 11:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How would I go about finding out..?

Hi there. It's good to get in contact with you again. I have a question relating to a couple of problems I have relating to Wikipedia articles I have seen (and in some cases, even, written). Yours was the first name I thought of when consideirng this question and whether you could help me further.

Let's take an article such as Horace Wass, for example, which I wrote from information available on the Internet. The Wikipedia article, as well as the source from which I received the information with which I wrote the article, both claim that the individual in question certainly was born in 1903, but, more than likely (other than in one in [x thousand] cases) this guy has more than likely died.

How would you advise I investigated whether or not the individual in question has indeed passed away, considering that I live in England? Any idea? Thank you in advance for your input. Bobo. 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Chances are he is still alive. A search of the English Death Index from 1837 to 2005 did not turn up a death record. However, it is possible he moved away or the record was misplaced.

Given the age (104), I wouldn't worry too much yet about whether he is still alive or not.

Age 104 is not even on my radar screen--too young. If you want to know for sure, however, I suggest hiring a genealogist. It simply is not fair to expect persons like myself to do this investigation when the records we find, we have to pay for.Ryoung122 05:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, the answer you gave was exactly the one I was looking for - if indeed there are such things as death indexes - something I didn't know about - then if he does not appear, he may well even still be alive. Thank you for your response and I shall keep an eye out in the future to see if anything turns up.

When you talk about English Death Indexes, is this something which is available to someone like me who is merely interested in finding out whether or not someone is still alive, or is this something that the privileged few, such as yourself, the Guinness researcher, would know about? How easily available would this be to me, and does the fact that I live in the United Kingdom screw this up further? Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. Bobo. 11:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

You can subscribe to www.ancestry.com for something like $200/year and have access to the England and Wales Birth, Marriage, and Death Indexes (1837-2005). Ironically I was able to find his 1903 birth registration.

Also, when you said the odds were 1,000 to 1 that he was still alive, you forgot to factor in that the overwhelming majority of persons born in 1903 who have died and were famous would already have a death date, so the lack of one leaves only two options: his death escaped notice, or he is still alive. Again, if he migrated to another country, his death may have gone unrecorded.Ryoung122 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Louis Lagaurnadie

You edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_WWI en 06/18, and deleted Louis Lagaurnadie from the list. Did this person die? I could not find any reference on Internet. If not, why did you delete him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.11.163 (talk • contribs)

He died Oct 26 2006. See 2006 deaths. Ryoung122 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature Change

Does anyone know why my signature has changed? I certainly didn't change it and I suspect vandalism...Ryoung122 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Melchizedek priesthood

You redirected Melchizedek priesthood to Melchizedek priesthood (Christianity), but within that article, the "main article" link under the "In the theology of the Latter Day Saints" heading still goes back to Melchizedek priesthood, and thus back to the same page. Melchizedek priesthood (Mormonism) is also a redirect to Melchizedek priesthood (and therefore now a double redirect, which should be fixed). Did you put the rest of the information from the original Melchizedek priesthood article somewhere else, or did you mean for that article to be moved to a different title? Pinball22 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant to rename the Melchizedek Priesthood article to Melchizedek Priesthood (Mormonism). First, if you check the history, that's what it was originally before a Mormon POV zealot renamed it...as if only Mormons have a 'Melchizedek Priesthood.' Whether you believe Mormonism is within (a subset of) Christianity or no, it should not be given preferential treatment over all the other religions combined.

In fact, the Melchizedek Priesthood (Christianity) article could be renamed "Melchizedek Priesthood" (note: there was obviously a Jewish one as well, pre-Aaronic priesthood times).Ryoung122 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then, would you mind reverting your redirect, since currently it's making it so that the information in the original article is visible nowhere? If you want to change the name, since there's already an article in the place you intend for it go, request a move on WP:RM -- there are instructions there about how to make the request and how to set up the discussion. Thanks! Pinball22 20:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage of the comma

In Surviving veterans of World War I you chose to remove my changes to this sentence:

British WWI veteran, 111-year-old Henry Allingham (born June 6, 1896), is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

It was correct as I had it. It would also be correct this way:

British WWI veteran 111-year-old Henry Allingham, born June 6, 1896, is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

But it is incorrect the way you have it. There is a simple test. If you remove the commas and the text between them, the remaining sentence would still make sense:

British WWI veteran is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

But it does not. So it has been fixed again, this time using the correct example above, which I hope you find more to your liking. --DHLister | Talk 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DHLister,

First off, I didn't write the sentence, but your 'correction' was no better than before, which is why someone else changed it.

Actually you are wrong. How much would you like to bet? First off, the word "The" is missing, but can be assumed. Therefore we would have "The British WWI veteran is currently the oldest living verified veteran." Thus the problem was the lack of an article, not the use of a comma. So, you 'fixed' what was not broken, and missed what was broken.

Because the sentence as written uses both 'veteran' and 'Henry Allingham' as 'nouns' in separate clauses, they must be set off with commas to be correct. Thus, for you to claim that your version was correct is spurious.

Please apologize for your rashness and presumption.Ryoung122 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed my attributes and it turns out I possess neither rashness nor presumption. No apology will be forthcoming. I did not, as you say, make a claim that you wrote the sentence. Your argument about assuming the word "The" is precisely the issue. With it, the commas are appropriate. Without it, they are not. It is, so far as I can determine from the reference works I have easy access to, the deciding factor regarding whether the commas are appropriate. In any case, PiCo's solution for the original sentence is better than mine. --DHLister | Talk 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag templates

Hi, don't forget to use the flag templates for Cape Verde {{CPV}} and Portugal {{POR}} next time you update the List of the oldest people, just to keep uniform the country references. Kind regards, Zdtrlik 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible new English case

Could you also give your thoughts about this claim, please? Extremely sexy 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

There's a question for you at Category talk:Male porn stars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal block

Hi, sorry, but I'm not an admin, so I can't block the vandal. What you need to do is report them at WP:AIV. Hope this helps. semper fictilis 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Sears Tower article another POV?

Hi

Allow me to introduce myself, I am Stefan, 18 years old and currently an architectural student and freelance skyscraper/architectural researcher and illustrator of tall buildings. (Well not really a researcher, but loves skyscrapers and architecture)

I have seen your userpage describing about yourself and I consider you an official (Or at least someone who knows alot and can look up to.) Well I'm just wondering...

...As I read through the Sears Tower article today, I am kind of perplexed by their explaination as a building that is taller than the Petronas Towers and claimed to be the World's tallest building till 2004, and also claim it was surpassed by Taipei 101, and not Petronas. I've been monitoring all the tallest structures in my watchlist, so sometime back an IP address tried to add the citation tag of where they claim their sources from; or something like that... Till today nothing has been done.

Months ago, in fact many times, people edited the article as surpassed by Petronas in accordance and compliance to Emporis and CTBUH rules but all edits has been reverted instead.

But the thing is, to me I think it's clearly nothing more than the writer's POV in that article of Sears. I find it rather contradicts itself in their explaination of "A Taller Building than Petronas" and the article doesn't really explain its point well enough. And what's worst is that it simply just claims that Sears is taller than Petronas but for no definate reason. Well maybe they provide certain aspects of reasoning but its still misleading and unconvincing to many. My school professor also thought it was one of those "false information articles" that Wikipedia provides. Since you have contributed for Emporis data and Guinness World Records, I was wondering if you agree on the aspect of the article, or does it need a rewrite?

Have a look at the article and write me back if you can...

Thanks!

Someformofhuman 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

Oh yeah, thanks for the fast enlightenment of your reply.

Someformofhuman 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your AFD

I removed your AFD, when was posted here in this edit because it was posted inside the AFD of another article. Corpx 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I dont think it would be appropriate for me to post an AFD for you. Also, please reply here or on my talk page, not my userpage :) Corpx 02:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Me post the AFD could also mean that I endorse the AFD, which may not be the case. You're supposed to post them here. Scroll down at WP:AFD and it tells you all about the procedures and such Corpx 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tennis Grand Slam editing

Yup. I'm just about to work on the Doubles and Trebles & GS's. But I don't want to cancel each others work out...User:Dsapery 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of "Suburb"

Clearly we have different interpretations of the term suburb. In Britain the term generally means the outskirts of a town or city where building and population densities are lower than in the inner city urban area that the suburbs surround. We do not use the term, in the way that you seem to do, as a form of administrative sub-division distinct from the town or city. In British usage, the term just refers to the way in which the land is used; administratively the suburb may be a part of the town or it may not.

Whether or not there is a "technical" definition of the term in the US that matches the way in which you use the word is not relevant to the Wimbledon article. The term is not used in that way in the UK so it would not be correct to "promote" its usage in that way in an article on a British subject which, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, is written using British English terminolgy and spellings.--DavidCane 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution, please

I ask that the two of you (Ryoung122 and Fyunck(click)) take steps towards dispute resolution and cease your current edit warring at List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. I am sure a sensible solution can be found. --健次(derumi)^talk 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. I also warn you that if you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Ruby Muhammad talk page

Please can you prove that Ruby Muhammad was born 1907 by showing the link to the 1910 census that includes her that you mention on the talk page but don't actually link to? It seems that one Wikipedian found a possible match but that entry was white, and Ruby M is black. Could you explain more please?

In due time, I will post the results on the "World's Oldest People" web group.Ryoung122 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-insert uncited, unsourced material on articles on living persons.

Uncited, unsourced material on pages about living persons especially can be very damaging to both our encyclopedia and to the persons involved. Thus, we don't tolerate unsourced material on these pages. Please don't restore the content I removed from Timothy J. Boham without showing it to be verifiable. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't understand what a 'talk page' is, and the material you deleted was sourced. I do wonder your personal vendetta in this case.Ryoung122 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the information that "Morven" continues to delete from Mr. Boham's website is in fact uncited and should not be on Mr. Boham's page. The information is also not being removed from the "talk page". If there are sources to justify the content of his information than those sources need to be cited. Some of the link's on the discussion page have nothing to do with Mr. Boham as well. The entries on Mr. Boham's information need to be cleaned up or cited properly. --Justiceleague1 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What Morven deleted was in fact cited...see the talk page.Ryoung122 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations should not be provided on the talk page. They should be provided inline in the article, close enough to the material stated to be obvious. There is also the question of relevance and undue weight. Be advised that you may be blocked from editing if you continue down this path.

As for me, I have no 'personal vendetta' here at all. I care absolutely nothing for Boham nor his victim nor any of the particular 'sides' in this whole thing. Upon coming across the article mentioned elsewhere, I found that there was a lot of the kind of thing we should be very careful about in this article; unverified claims, unsourced claims, and some stuff that appeared clearly irrelevant.

It is worrying that you consider anyone who goes against your wishes to have a 'personal vendetta' in the matter. Perhaps that's an indication that your feelings about this issue are too strong, and you are unable to edit this article neutrally?

If you think that the content I removed should be in the article, let's discuss it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Morven, I couldn't care less about Donna Thomas, and I didn't add that edit. I do care, however, about the mass deletion of talk-page discussion. It was a good-faith effort to identify where the information came from and to discuss whether it should be included. Leaving the material is beneficial because a new reader won't have to repeat the same issue, since it has already been discussed.

I find the below comment to be particularly disturbing:

Perhaps that's an indication that your feelings about this issue are too strong, and you are unable to edit this article neutrally?

What issue? That Donna Thomas appeared on Court TV? I don't know if Boham and/or his victim is what has been described, but clearly there were widely discrepant reportings in the news media: some said Boham was homophobic, some said he wasn't. Since we don't know the first-hand facts, it is best to simply cite the material 'as is' and let the reader decide. It's like a debate between Democrats and Republicans. We are not there to 'take sides' or, worse, to delete both sides. We should, instead, present both sides of the story and let the reader decide. Is that too much?Ryoung122 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) Ryoung122 05:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The talk page discussion contains as far as I can tell a disturbingly large amount of speculation and stuff not sourced to anywhere. We don't permit this on a talk page either, especially staying as a permanent record after the discussion has finished. You keep insisting I "deleted the sources"; I did not - because stuff on a talk page is NOT sources. Sources should be in the article itself.

As to Donna Thomas, nothing has indicated she is of any lasting interest to this case, and I suspect that some of the information about her in the article was there because she herself added it.

Yes, we present all sides (but not so as to give minority views undue weight, per NPOV), but only sourced facts and opinions. There's much in that article that is not sourced or poorly sourced.

Lastly, I only speculated that you might have overly strong feelings about the subject matter because you instantly assumed I must have a personal vendetta about the issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiregional hypothesis

I've removed your addition to the lead of Multiregional hypothesis; while it is interesting information, it does not belong in the lead section of the article and it needs a rewrite for encyclopedic tone. I would recommend placing it in either Multiregional hypothesis and other theories of human origin or Recent evidence, depending on whether you want to concentrate on the "African origin" angle or the differing interpretation of the evidence. Regarding the tone, everything after "it beggars belief" needs to be removed, and the statement about the proponents of the recent-origin hypothesis should be reworded to be neutral. Also, you should provide a scholarly citation for the alternate interpretation of the mitochondrial and Y-chromosome evidence to prevent it from being removed again as original research. Anomie 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most ancient common ancestor

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

Please stop your 'original research'

Can you please format your comments correctly on my talk page please? Proper indentation and proper block quotation will be much appreciated. Thanks. Fred Hsu 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't stand the badly indented paragraphs. I fixed them myself. Fred Hsu 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And please stop your original research. You seem to think of an idea first, create an article, then try to google for anything which remotely look similar to your own new phrase as 'reference'. Please remember that wikipedia is an encylopedia. There is no place for new ideas here. New ideas belong in scientific journals. Please submit your papers to journals first. Fred Hsu 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)\

First off, I have had items printed in scientific journals. I am mainly a gerontologist. However, I don't think that should limit me to one field. Did Thomas Jefferson not invent the swivel chair, the dumbwaiter, design Monticello, write the Declaration of Independence, found the University of Virginia, serve as president of the U.S....what about persons like Leonardo Da Vinci? Should his painting ability preclude his ideas for a helicopter? I think not. Also, you need to stop being so personally vindictive. Often, when a good idea comes along, it turns out that a little research shows that someone else already thought of it...but no one has bothered to put it on Wikipedia, yet. Look, I don't need to found an article like Atlanta...it already exists. Wikipedia is already well-established. But with people establishing bunk articles, such as for episodes of a TV series (like the Simpsons), well then there should be more than enough room for a SCIENTIFIC concept. Remember, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER. There is no need to limit it to only the biggest, category-1 topics. And if you want a good article, you would do well to try to add to a good start rather than tear it down.Ryoung122 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not get wikipedia. You keep wanting to create articles to express your 'novel ideas'. I don't know how many times I said this to you already: an encyclopedia is not a place for you to express your new ideas, in print or electronically. Sigh. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:No original research please? I will be watching your contributions page and your past edits. I may need to file more deletion nominations. And again I indented your sentences for you. I hope you don't mind. Fred Hsu 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Please read Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Since your article is on a novel or not-widely-accepted scientific theory, creating a good article with plenty of easy to verify references mainly from secondary and tertiary sources will make it much harder to delete through AFD. If you do not have at least 3-4 independent, high-quality, well-respected secondary sources, and at least one primary source, then the article should not be written. If you cannot provide a reference any substantial statement in the article if asked to do so, then that particular statement should be removed. The bulk of the article should be supportable entirely by secondary sources. If you do not follow these instructions, the odds are any rewrite will spur an AFD, and it will likely fail. Personally, I ope you can write a good article on this subject. However, I looked for references and was unable to find more than 4. Of course, these do not include written material and most material in subscription databases. Books and printed articles that are not "novelty press" publications are perfectly valid resources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please quit your condescending tone. You are not above me. None of what you are saying is 'new.' Please note that articles do NOT start out as 'good articles'...they start out as 'stubs.' Good articles take time to work on. Also, I find it quite irritating that persons like you are trying to hold Wikipedia up to such a high standard. Last I checked, I see articles like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2C_%28Annoyed_Grunt%29-Bot

Now, I don't think a single episode of the Simpsons is that important. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is like a democracy (that elects presidents like George Bush). Popular masses rule.

I find it quite ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia, if it has room for articles like that, can't fit in a scientific concept that is crucial for the ideas and understanding of evolution. No wonder so many people still believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Give them Krusty the Clown, who needs science.Ryoung122 01:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to distinguish fact from whim. It doesn't matter whether you care about the Simpsons or not. As long as it is based on fact, and enough people want to see it, it will remain in wikipedia. If an article is based on whimsical arbitrariness of the author, not facts, it will be deleted. Fred Hsu 02:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding The Simpsons: For most TV shows, individual episodes do not warrant their own pages. The Simpsons is one of those rare exceptions. It is an exception on two counts: One, some episodes are actually notable in their own right. Two, and this isn't very fair or very professional but it's a fact of life, enough editors on Wikipedia want each episode to have its own page that each episode will have its own page. The same thing goes for a lot of other topics that have a special place in a nerd's heart. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that your credentials don't mean anything here. I'm not trying to be rude, but that's how it is. The value of your contributions should be based on their actual value and verifiability and nothing else. It's that way for a reason too. --Android Mouse 04:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I think you're totally wrong. Credentials DO mean something. The problem with the Essjay controversy is that no one bothered to check. You'll find that mine are quite verifiable.

http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwger/about/admin.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228

Second, persons like Fred Hsu are quick to condemn and slow to think outside the pre-prgrammed mantra of mainstream thought. Everything was a 'stacked-deck' response. Even labeling what I wrote 'original' research was bunk. Later, Hsu accidentally admitted that the ideas were present in Richard Dawkin's book. Ryoung122 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, the situation probably could have been handled better. Although I'd have to disagree with you on the issue of credentials. I don't find them being relevant to Wikipedia in this instance and especially when arguing the validity of your contributions. --Android Mouse 04:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122, please stop putting words in my mouth. Please stop using straw man to defend your defunct article. You had nothing but junk in that article, and that is why is has been deleted. Your article did not offer any evidence or reference to to support 'Out of Africa Again and Again' theory (not exactly multiregional hypothesis, mind you). Your explanation of 'your idea' was illogical and impossible to follow. You stuck 'your idea' in an article with a name you made up. I merely pointed out that perhaps if you had read some books on evolution (such as Dawkins' book), you would have actually understood it and be able to find references. This in no way supports your 'most ancient common ancestor' article. The name was simply dumb and illogical. Perhaps you are a genius and invented the same idea. But please observe wikipedia rules, and edit appropriate articles (e.g. Multiregional hypothesis) instead of inventing your own. If you want to write about your open-minded, novel ideas, please get a blog of your own. How many times do I have to repeat these? Fred Hsu 05:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hsu,

Let me begin by saying that I believe it is OK for an article to start off a 'stub' and improve...I believe in the theory of 'cumulative evolution' as Richard Dawkins advocates in "The Blind Watchmaker." What appears at first to be 'bunk or junk' can, after just a few 'generations,' be seen to be an organized pattern.

Now, it should follow that 'if' humans arrived from separate origins (multiregional hypothesis) and all humans alive today have 'common ancestors' that, like bookends (such as birth and death dates), there must be a 'first' common ancestor if there is also a 'last.' The graphic on the multiregional hypothesis may not have used the four-letter phrase, but the diagram showed just that. I don't believe in the need to invent terms like 'concestor'...however I agree that the words I used could be chosen as something else...'first human common ancestor', for example. The idea was not new, but neither was it much-thought-about in the 'mainstream' camp. The whole point of the article was to relate how the concept of Mito-Eve, Y-Adam and MRCA had been misused to make the 'single recent origin hypothesis' appear more certain than it was. I do agree that evidence such as DNA research does support it (but does not completely rule out the survival of other groups). Studying '147' individuals certainly doesn't tell the complete picture of human origins.

In reality, I do favor the 'recent single origin' hypothesis but I disagree that the genetic studies require 'not a single survivor' from pre-60,000 years ago. That is the main issue.

As regards to blogs, I am a member of the Gerontology Research Group blog which includes such notables as Leonard Hayflick, Aubrey de Grey, S. Jay Olshansky, etc. I do realize that gerontology and evolution aren't the same. However, since investigations into the biology of aging include work with DNA and inheritance, and it is believed that the 'maximum human lifespan' evolved over many years and the keys to solving aging include figuring out what evolutionary adaptations resulted in humans living longer, there is an overlap in interest.

If you wish,

Ryoung, you can address me as Fred. There is no need for "Mr.". If you reply individually to my points below, please use proper indentation to preserve the structure of conversation. I will repeat what I've said before one more time, and if we don't get anywhere, I will stop the futile conversation. But I will continue to watch your contributions page. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• A stub is not the same as original research. Stubs are simply short articles; they are still based on facts. People don't simply dream up an idea and create a stub for it. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a forum nor a blog. It is an encyclopedia. As such, we hold it to high standards; only topics backed by real sources (books and journals) are accepted. It has nothing to do with being or not being open-minded. I am extremely puzzled by your persistent refusal to understand this point. Please do read Wikipedia:No original research. Original research will be promptly deleted from wikipedia. That's the rule. We all abide by it. If you do not like it, write your ideas in a blog, not here. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• The deletion nomination is about your article on 'most ancient common ancestor' which you coined. The nomination and discussion is about the article, not about multiregional hypothesis. Can you please keep these two points separated in your head? Please don't try to enact a straw man based on multiregional hypothesis. We are not discussing whether such hypothesis is worthy of an wikipedia article; there is already one. For all you know, I may be a proponent of this hypothesis. What we are discussing is whether your article was worth its place on wikipedia; it is not. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• On misunderstanding of mt-mrca and Y-mrca: Have you read Most recent common ancestor and Mitochondrial Eve thouroughly? The first discusses various ways MRCAs are defined/qualified. And yes, there can be more than one MRCA, despite what you believe. If you trace MRCA via different genes, you will find different MRCAs. This should answer many of your questions. The latter has a section on Out-of-Africa theories which answers your other questions. Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale devotes an entire rendezvous point (Gibbon's tale) to talk about how the 'mainstream' phylogenetic tree is nothing more than a 'majority vote' among numerous gene trees. This should answer your remaining questions. But please do not take my point here as an endorsement of your defunct article; again these are two different things. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Listing your credentials here (whether relevant to topics on discussion or not) has no effect on how people perceive your contributions. We value contributions based on their own merits. Who wrote them is irrelevant. Would my wikipedia contributions be more highly regarded if I were a member of the RichardDawkins.net? The answer is no. Fred Hsu 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikicode hints

Here's some hints when writing in Wikipedia:

Two lines on top of each other become one line.

Use a : at the beginning of a line to indent

Use two or more :'s to indent deeper.

• Use a * to make a bullet

• Use :* to indent a bullet.

• • Use ** to make multiple bullets. Rarely used.

Use a space to put your text in a box.

When you make a multi-paragraph post that starts with a bullet or indent, put as many :'s as needed before each additional paragraph so things line up well.

Always preview your posts. If you mess up, go back and fix it.

"Edit" this comment to see the source code. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I "DO" appreciate 'hints.' Don't expect immediate results; they have to 'sink in.'

However, I do believe that the 'line spacing' issue reflects a problem with WIKIPEDIA and a 'workaround' solution doesn't cut it. I know about the 'bullets' issue. The line-spacing issue occurs when new text is inserted into an old message.Ryoung122 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Part 2: Quoting blocks of text

You can use {{quote}} and {{cquote}} to quote blocks of text, like so:

• President Lincoln said

  Four-score and seven years ago...

  or:
• President Lincoln said

“ Four-score and seven years ago... ”

As you can see, {{quote}} can be confusing. It's probably better to use cquote. You can also just put the whole quote in italics or bold. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Commas in Template:Age in years and days

IMO the comma looks right grammatically. Is there a part of style guide which says otherwise? I suggest that of you feel strongly about it, take it to the talk page there and see if there's a consensus to change. —Moondyne 09:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Katr67 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Katr67 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood

No, I'm not a relative. Please check the sources listed, and if you notice there is a picture of the headstone. Then take a moment to read WP:ASG, and learn how to check sources. Aboutmovies 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit being such a smartass. ASSUMING that I don't know how to 'check for sources' is NOT WP:ASG. Perhaps you need to read it again.Ryoung122 19:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you checked the sources then why were you asking "If you'd like to re-write history, I'd expect you to produce actual documentation"? Obviously I am not re-writing history as the original sources already wrote this, and the documentation per WP:CITE is there. So I don't need to assume, you demonstrated that you either did not read or ignored that which was provided. Aboutmovies 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL in regards to "smartass".

As to her actual age, I don't care how old she was. Doesn't matter to me. But you need to keep WP:OR in mind as it looks like that has been a challenge for you judging by the above discussions. "Newspapers and family folklore is only enough to count as a longevity claim." As you stated is not correct regarding Wikipedia regarding newspapers. There is no family folklore introduced into the article except that which may be contained within the newspaper articles. Newspapers may not be enough for Guiness, but this is not Guiness. Keep that in mind. When I write bios (and I have written well over 100 hundred on Wiki) I don't care about the person, I only care about getting the bio correct based off of the reliable sources available. For Wood, four sources of this type were used. So if there is an error, it is on their part and I cannot (nor anyone else) correct the discrepancy unitl/unless there is information correcting the error in a reliable source. So, as you work for a reliable source, publish your findings there, then come back and cite the info on Wikipedia. Please note a Yahoo! bulletien board is not a reliable source, nor is a blog, or a personal website.

On a side note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit thus: Also, unless you've read this book: http://www.archive.org/details/humanlongevityit00thomrich you really shouldn't be commenting. is also incorrect and uncivil.

So to sum things up, feel free to demonstrate what her real age is, get it published, then change the article. I could not care less. But introducing original research will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. And do not remove the "Queen Mother of Oregon" bit, I don't think you are disputing that, as that could be considered vanadalism. Aboutmovies 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new autobiography article: Robert Young (gerontologist)

Congratulations on successfully adding your resume to wikipedia. Fred Hsu 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did it mainly so when I add a citation to supercentenarian-frauds like Mary Ramsey Wood, they can have something to link to. The Ramsey Wood promoter was claiming there were 'no' citations, but it would be beating a dead horse to list all the organizations, would it not, on her page? Would not a simple census citation suffice, and if you don't believe the census, a link to why this would be a reputable interpretaion. I note we have past examples like A. Ross Eckler, Jr. Considering there is only one Gerontology Consultant for Guinness World Records, I am one in 6.4 billion. However, that is not the main point; I plan to build a 'historiographic' tree of age-validation research. Gerontology is probably one of the most infant sciences out there...the Gerontology Society of America was only founded in the 1940's. Currently, we have no way of scientifically determing a person's age through biological testing. This points to a large gap. Also, since most famous gerontologists tend to be 'old-school' and don't use Wikipedia, we don't see much on persons like K Werner Schaie, James Birren, or the like. I plan to serve as a conduit for transferring PRINT media to the World Wide Web. I do realize that since Wikipedia is often the first place people under 25 to go to for information, it is important that such information be positioned so we can educate them. Often, the subject students are the WORST at is history, yet it is one of the easiest fields to learn. The reason is because we as a society have mostly failed as 'mentors.' Yet I myself have been helped along by mentors, and I see the advantage to giving back to others what they have given to me.

The historiography of 'supercentenarians' remains a scientific backwater, often ignored by the mainstream press. Yet the recent gains in life expectancy and possibly life span has led to, in the past 15-20 years, an emergence into the mainstream. Yet it is important to show that such ideas are NOT new and where one can find them. For example, William Thoms--who also coined the term 'folklore'...helped bring a 'hobby' of tracking tales of extreme age claims into a scientific focus. That was, of course, in the 1870's. Some 130 years later, we can see that the message of science is not heeded, mostly because people haven't been educated about the subject. That has finally begun to change, and while I am a part of that change I am certainly not the only one.

I usually don't want to create more than one article a day, but I do see a need for articles for quite a number of scientists yet.

Have a pleasant afternoon.

P.S. David Allen Lambert created his own page (only he used a sockpuppet), yet nothing was done. Is is not more respectable for me to make my own page than to make a fake ID and start it? Further, Wiki:Auto was mainly for persons who don't have a sense of PROPORTIONALITY. I'm not mentioning facts like who my mother is, how many sisters I have, etc. That seems irrelevant. The policy calls for exceptions where reasonable. If I'm writing mainly to say 'the greatest person ever' was born in year X', with no citations, that would be ridiculous. Yet I have over 1,000 news citations from six continents, including the BBC, CNN, Tokyo Times, etc. What is relevant is that I am at the forefront of the battle to change people's perceptions regarding the myths of aging. That someone who thought he was reputable had no idea that age '120' is extremely rare simply speaks to the need for more categorization and cross-linking. Thus, I also linked the longevity claims article...and outlet for grey-area claims. For those who insist on believing anything someone says, there's also longevity myths. Ryoung122 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, a Wikipedia article carries some negative risk: others can more easily identify me and link me. It is much easier to hide behind an anonymous ID and rant away, with no consequence. However, I wanted to take that risk of identification because my goal is to advance the education of the world concerning what they believe regarding the maximum human life span, in particular. And second, because I'm not a very good liar and life is simply to complicated to be creating false Id's and feigning anonymity when, whereever I go, people can recognize who it is doing the edits. See for example the message boards on 'Surviving Veterans of WWI'.Ryoung122 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think I misunderstood the 'present' you left on my talk page. Oh well. I do not challenge your own autobiography. I was simply amused when I first saw it. 'Notability' is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, and you have many references. I do agree wholeheartedly with your idea of using real names, Robert. Fred Hsu 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

John Campbell Ross

"No one at "world's oldest people" has asserted that John Campbell Ross is the 'oldest man' in Australia. However, I believe that once age 108 is reached, especially for males, the chance is at least 50% that such a claim is true; therefore, it should be accepted unless otherwise challenged."

Unfortunately, this sort of logic violates Wikipedia policy - I still feel that there is room for debate on the acceptability of the forum as a reliable source, but that is actually irrelevant in this particular instance. If your source does not even claim that JCR is the oldest, then it has to be removed. Everything must be sourced on Wikipedia, there are no exceptions. I'm sure that you have already read WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Verifiability, so you understand that "best guesses" cannot be a part of Wikipedia. Am I being a bit hypocritical? Probably, a lot of the names on the Living national longevity recordholders page have poor and possibly unacceptable citations. If you delete those, there's not much I or anyone else can do about it.

So I guess in the end, I challenge the claim that JCR is the oldest man, and unless you can show me some sort of publication that claims that he is not (newspaper article, statistical data from a government website etc.) then my challenge remains valid. Canadian Paul 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Those pages were created by Bart Versieck. I realized how difficult it would be to not just maintain but to find reliable sources. I was just giving you a 'matter-of-fact' approach. This is Bart's issue, not mine, so talk to him about it...but yes, if you come down hard a lot of cases could disappear.Ryoung122 23:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you comment on my reactions here, please, Robert? Extremely sexy 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

surviving WWI veterans

This list has several problems. For one, I think this list shouldn't exist at all; it does not offer any information that cannot be found when this is converted into a category. Second, this list will by its nature be empty sooner rather than later. Third, columns like age require constant monitoring and should be avoided as much as possible. Finally, this looks a lot like original research to me (don't forget: drawing conclusions from two different sources is original research as well). All in all, more than enough reason to downgrade this list. I'm also going to nominate it for AfD, as well as the different lists of veterans who died in 200x or 199x, because these should be categories as well.

Furthermore, prompted by comments left on your talk page immediately above this reaction, I took a look at Robert Young (gerontologist). I have some concerns about this article as well, mainly if it satisfies WP:PROF. I think I will ask the community about this article as well, because if I don't someone else probably will. Errabee 09:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of World War I Errabee 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mary Ramsey Wood

I apologize for not making myself clear on the Talk page. My point was that the US Census returns is a reliable source, not one that should be excluded such as primary sources -- although this material needs to be used carefully in Wikipedia for them to be accepted. I have no strong opinion on the matter of long she lived -- whether it was 120 or 20 years; if anything, I would lean towards a number lower than 110 for reasons other than one entry in a Census return.

I would suggest that you may reconsider how you present your case to other Wikipedians. Your post on my User talk page came across as very hostile and condescending, & did not encourage me to take your side. If you would like to attempt to be less confrontational, I'm willing to discuss the matter further. -- llywrch 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Species integration

An article that you have been involved in editing, Species integration, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration. Thank you. Fred Hsu 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice that you are the author of at least two bogus biology articles, Most ancient common ancestor, and now this one. I am not sure what to make of this. You either mean well but are misguided by fallacious synthesis untempered by background knowledge, or you are introducing hoax articles. Either way, this creates unnecessary work for other people. Please be more circumspect. If you think you have found a great term for a new article, consider inquiring for other opinions at WP:RD/S first. dab (𒁳) 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to avoid AfDs in the future

Species integration is up for AfD because you are using the term in a manner different than your references. Even if those references mirrored your usage, the article would be up for AfD because some scientists use the term in a manner different than you and you do not address that usage, giving due weight to each usage of the term. May I make some suggestions?

• Accept that this article will be deleted.
• Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is to reflect the world, not your view of the world. Keep WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR in mind.
• Determine if the term you want to use is used for different or competing ideas. If it is, determine if your usage is used more than every other usage. If it is NOT, then you will not be able to use the term the way you want to. You can still write an article about the term, but it must be primarily about the most common use of the term. Other uses of the term can be in short paragraphs or in other articles differentiated by a disambiguation page. For example, you can have Species Integration with the dominant use of the term and Species Integration (put something here to clearly differentiate the article) and add a disambiguation page or disambiguation template.
• Go back and draft a "good article" quality article on the topic. Get at least 3 high-quality, well-researched sources. At least one of the sources should be a secondary or tertiary source, preferably with a bibliography. Write your article in a way that makes it crystal clear that you are using terms in the exact same way as your sources. Do not include anything that remotely resembles original research. This may mean putting a footnote around every sentence. This will short-circuit any accusations of Original Research.
• If there are other uses of the term, put a disambiguation template at the top pointing to the disambiguation page or, if there is only one other use of the term, the other article. If there are competing theories, include a section called "competing theories" with either wikilinks to articles about those theories or web-links to high-quality, well-researched web pages that describe those theories. If the theory described in the article you draft is actually attacked by opposing scientists, rather than merely ignored, include a section called "controversy" and briefly describe and reference such attacks. These two sections will reduce the chance that your article will be accused of having a non-neutral P=Point Of View.
• If you are able to all of these things, the resulting article will be much less vulnerable to AfD. However, I am not optimistic you will be able to find the quality sources necessary to do this. If such sources were available, you would likely have used them already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Reply

Ah, I didn't realize that was your anonymous IP that posted the link to the debate. In any case, I just posted my sentiments on the debate - if the people voting to keep considered you notable enough to rewrite your article based completely on the sources alone, I'd have no problem with keeping it. In terms of your notability, I'd say that there's enough evidence there to at least make the argument and, as an inclusionist, I don't mind it on Wikipedia at all. Off the record (since this isn't a valid argument in these kind of debates) you have more notability (and more potential in your article) than the likes of Kenichi Yamamoto (best finish: 22nd place), Hiroshi Yoshizawa (best finish: 36th place), Tibor Zsíros (best result: member of the 16th place Hungarian basketball team) and a thousand others, but because they participated in the Olympics once, they have to stay. How much is anyone going to be able to expand these articles? They're so obscure no one even knows if they're still alive. Hell, your contributions at least mirror those of Vincenzo Zappalà.

As for living longevity national recordholders, if you have the time, feel free to remove anyone that doesn't have, in your opinion, a proper citation. I'm not much of a feather-ruffler (believe it or not), and I've stirred up enough with JCR. I much prefer to do technical things like proper referencing and infoboxes because it contributes and is much less controversial. I guess I don't always have time to be consistent sadly, but I do what I can. Haha.

Regarding Ruby Muhammad, I want to look into it a bit more before I argue it further or do any reversions, so I'll leave that topic for when I have some more time to have an informed opinion given what you have presented me. So no comment from me on that just now, but I thought you deserved a response on the other two items as soon as possible. Anyhow, you don't have to worry about me changing the Ruby Muhammad page until I comment again - I think a lot of people follow the policy of Wikipedia more than the spirit (hence all the repeated deletion attempts on Living WWI Veterans), and I'd hate to turn too much into one of those people. If there's doubt, we'll let the people know about it for now. Canadian Paul 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood

Good day. I have responded to a request for informal mediation on this article and I've asked a question to all disputing parties. Could you go to the discussion page and please provide your input? Trusilver 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the table for an attempt at consensus. Could you go read over the proposed article and suggest what changes would need to be made to come to an agreement? Trusilver 06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

www.grg.org (table E)

Hi Robert. This is not exactly a Wikipedia-based question but it involves the table E page on grg which is a reference linked to Wikipedia and also one in which you are involved. Firstly why are there only seven men on the Table E list when the whole top ten on the Oldest people page are now supercentenarians? Secondly, what's going on with places 57-60 on table E? 110years 394days? Many thanks. Rrsmac 00:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am a content provider (along with Louis Epstein and Filipe Prista Lucas) to the GRG "Table E". However, Dr. Coles does the actual updates. '110 years 394 days' appears to be an errant calculation by an auto-updating feature. I will ask Dr. Coles to fix it but I suggest e-mailing him directly at scoles@grg.org any time the issue is one of 'formatting.'

Second, about the 'Oldest People' article...that article demands 'immediate results' but has a lot of unsourced material. I happen to know that Nicolaus Kao Tse-Tsien is NOT recognized by Guinness; the article that claimed he was simply made that up. It seems the source of his age, if any, would have to come from the Roman Catholic Church. However, no one has contacted us concerning this case.

Regarding the Portuguese man, I am waiting on the Portuguese expert to send the birth certificate and declare his age 'valid.' So far, he has not. Please note we have a LOT of cases to work on, and it is simply unfair to skip to the younger males first. For example, did you know that Elsie Johnson Maney died at 112 years 340 days on March 3 2007? Probably not. She was a lot older than any of the 'top 10' men. The fact of the matter is...research shows that 9 out of 10 supercentenarians are female (my list exceeds 1,000 cases already). However, just as in athletic events, where women generally are 'weaker' than men and so need a separate field, so men rarely if ever outlive women and need a separate listing (just the reverse...women have greater endurance than men; men have greater peak strength). I understand that. We are currently working on Ronnie Fairbanks of California (born May 29/30 1897). In regards to the Finnish case, he appears to be a 'rookie' age and I prefer to do the older cases first (i.e Bessie Roffey, born Mar 2 1897; Dina Manfredini, born May 4 1897, etc). However, if a Finnish correspondent wishes to send the documents today we can add him today.Ryoung122 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind. Rrsmac 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation Required

What solicited this comment on my talk page? I have no interest in the page that you discuss, other than what I thought was doing you a favour by putting the template back to the bottom of the page? Canadian Paul 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. By the way, thanks for the Roche link! I hadn't doubted that she existed, it's just that all the links to the news of her 110th birthday were broken, so I couldn't post them. Now that article is fully referenced, hopefully putting a dent in its AfD (not that the nominator had much of a reason to nominate it anyhow...) Canadian Paul 04:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tsuneyo Toyonaga

Just to let you know, the Tsuneyo Toyonaga has been created again. Given that no one found out that Yasu Nishiyama was deceased for almost ten months, one has to wonder about some of the other cases... anyhow, I'm going to try and speedily delete it. If not, we might have to go through a second round of AfD. Canadian Paul 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that there's more evidence of her being alive than there was a few months ago, the concerns really haven't been addressed. There's still not likely to be much information on her and there's still nothing in the article outside of what can be found in Oldest people or List of living supercentenarians. At least Shitsu Nakano has the claim of being one of the world's all time oldest... but I suppose it's not really worth the trouble of an AfD. I'm worried about what kind of precedent that this may set though... Canadian Paul 20:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good prediction!

I was reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker, and I saw this: "Let's not forget that Edna is also a moving target; her world ranking could further improve the longer she lives." - her ranking certainly did improve! :-) Carcharoth 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

Do you have a source for this edit? The information you added is inconsistent with all the sources, every one of which says she married in 1911 at 18. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the actual marriage certificate in my possession. Ryoung122 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

John Babcock

Well, I do understand where both you and Bart are coming from, and I certainly don't deny that he is American. My only problem is that it seems to me to be a strange double standard. I mean, he's known as both a Canadian and an American veteran and he is prided as being the last Canadian veteran. He would still be important if he were just another American veteran, but what makes so important is that he is Canadian. I'm not going to change it anymore, I can accept that he did turn 100 while in the United States so he is technically, an American centenarian. It just seems strange to celebrate him as a Canadian in one instance but ignore him in another. I also think of Mary Josephine Ray on Living National Longevity Recordholders, we consider her the Canadian living national longevity recordholder even though she was living (and still lives) in America when she attained that record. In fact we purposely removed all the other still-living-in-Canada cases and let her stand alone.

Like I said though, the point is that I won't change it. You and Bart have enough of a case that it's not worth getting into a whole big fighter over. I'm sure there are far better ways for all of us to spend our time on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the whole point is in fact that he fought as a Canadian and turned 100 as an American, which he still is: to me this is just plain logic. Extremely sexy 18:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnum

Right. The 1800s lasted from 1800 to 1899, so being born in 1810, he wasn't alive in the 1800s. Of course I'm aware "1800s" is popularly used to mean "19th century", but here, we should use the latter in order to avoid ambiguity. Biruitorul 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But not the 1900s. Extremely sexy 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again. By "popularly", I meant "colloquially", or "frequently encountered or widely accepted" (even if incorrect in a formal context, which this is). Have you perchance read 1800s? You'll see it refers to a decade, not a century. Biruitorul 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Old people

Noted, I will make the stubs longer in future, but much featured content started as sub-stubs, there is no deadline. Jdcooper 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gladys Swetland

Hi. Just want to let you know that your article Gladys Swetland is up for deletion. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, but why by Paul? Extremely sexy 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As Mr. Young himself said, these supercentenarian articles are "spinning out of control." Swetland is a test to see how and if WP:PSEUDO applies to these articles. I suppose it was a bit unfair of me to do this without warning, so here is the list of articles I will be nominating in a bundle if Swetland is deleted:

• John Ingram McMorran
• Shitsu Nakano
• Elena Slough
• Emma Verona Johnston
• Camille Loiseau
• Grace Clawson
• Ura Koyama
• Susie Gibson
• Margaret Skeete
• Lucy Hannah
• Annie Jennings
• Hide Ohira

All of these people are or were a) Dead, meaning that they won't get any more notable as time passes b) Not state or national longevity recordholders c) Never the world's oldest person, man or woman. Many were admittedly the oldest person in a nation at the time of their death but I do not feel that is sufficient per WP:PSEUDO. If I am mistaken and any of these articles fall into one of those three criteria let me know and I won't nominate it. Also, if any of these articles can be shown to be expandable into full length articles, I won't nominate them either. I want to contribute to supercentenarian, longevity and veteran articles and lists, but I just don't see the need for all these permastubs, and now I have a possible policy option to back me. Cheers, CP 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you think it shouldn't be there, why don't you nominate it? You know you'll have me on board at least, along with a few others. Cheers, CP 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Camille_Loiseau.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't just revert these templates without resolving the problem first. The image is missing licensing information. If it is copyrighted and you intend to use it under fair-use, you need to add a license tag to that effect and a fair-use rationale. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"110 years"

I suppose that's true, but I wonder if better wording couldn't be found. I actually was thinking from the vantage point of 2500, but 2020 is of more concern to us. No big deal -- but I would say the phrase "a few states didn't even exist yet" could be removed, because if one of them did have a supercentenarian (NM is one such), we'd still include it, even if it was a territory at the time. Biruitorul 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Oldest people formatting

• See my reply here. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith Accusation

I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As You Make Your Bed, So You Must Lie in It

(I posted the above message before I saw this):

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

 + I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 

I found the 'bad faith' accusation quite on the mark. Yes, you have contributed a lot. However, you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others. You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star". Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Unless you founded FACEBOOK or something, don't be treating other people as if 'GOD' has just walked into the room. The claim that I would call into question your actions merely to get a 'leg up' in an AFD debate is a typical example. No, I believe down to the core that your actions were ill-considered and inappropriate. Whether the idea was yours or planted by another, to attack an article simply to 'move the chains forward' for an agenda (to make it easier to take out lesser articles, something you already stated you proposed to do) is completely unacceptable. The chance of living to age 113.66 is estimated to be about 1 in 100 million or so. In the same way that we have lists (and articles) for the 200 tallest buildings in the world, is it too much to ask to actually 'document' a case? Instead of everyone having to 'take our word for it' that a case is notable...providing the details allows others to investigate and double-check. I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica as recently as the 1980's wrote that 'no human has ever lived more than 113 years 124 days'. For those not trusting the Izumi case, the first person to verifably reach Ms. Swetland's age was Fannie Thomas and that was in late 1980. True, the 'conveyor belt' has moved higher and there may come a point in the future when '113 years 240 days' is no longer a big deal, but since Ms. Swetland's death the records have actually gone lower...she would now be '4th oldest' if alive today, not '9th oldest'.

Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I note the USA currently has 6 of the top 10 oldest verified living people. Should we then ONLY create articles for the oldest American, ignoring the other five, while creating articles for much-younger persons such as Florrie Baldwin?

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

Good riddance!

I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors

Wikipedia does that every day, day in, day out, to everyone. Including you. Get used to it.

You have crossed the line.

Once again, a police-like mentality. No, I did not cross the line, you did. You began the attack for the wrong reason, not me. I'm not going to defend every article...I dropped Yasu Nihiyama and Tsuneyo Toyonaga (the first time). But there comes a point when throwing out an article is akin to kicking a worthy player out of the Hall of Fame. You could easily have gone after some mere 110-year-old permastub with little or no significance. Instead you decided to play chess and go after someone in the top 10%. That's right. Of 1054 persons aged 110+, Gladys ranked in the top 9%. That's an "A".

Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland. No, I was NOT closely monitoring every article I ever created (over 60). Yes, I did find it highly unethical to suggest nominating an article that would be 'easier to delete' since no one might notice (given it wasn't in the news lately). The FACT of the matter is, the majority of people that vote for deletion don't have any idea what the subject is about in the first place. The main purpose of the longevity articles is, in fact, not to tell the public that 'Gladys plays the piano'. It is to inform the public just what the maximum human lifespan is, and give a few examples on the frontier of survival. When you only cite the 'oldest person' and that's it, children develop a concept of a large gap between the 'oldest celebrities' (like George Burns, 100) and the 'world's oldest woman' (age 114). Creating a list of the '100 oldest people of all time' helps to show that, in fact, there is no 'gap.' Like a kid collecting baseball player cards and learning about stats, so these 'perma'-stubs, especially when expanded, can serve as collective examples of:

A. How long people really live (in fact, the tight-knit bundling of the ages shows that the real age maximums are quite close together, making it easier for children to recognize that claims to age '125' are bogus) B. Various strategies of success on how to live a long, long life (hint: it's not the same for everyone) C. People of all 'races' all live about the same length of time as everyone else D. Kids will learn a little about history, as well.

True, in the same way that children have their favorite 'sports' team, nationalism plays a role here, too. So we need 'examples' from many different nations. But we shouldn't short-sheet the 'large' nations, either. In the same way that children need to know that '9 out of 10 supercentenarians are female' so showing that the USA is first in supercentenarians just might raise a lot of good questions that lead to answers such as "part of the reason the USA has so many supercentenarians is that there hasn't been a war here since 1865"...which reflects on issues of larger society as well.

Yes, I have all these ideas in mind. This is bigger than just Gladys or you or me. It is about educating the world.

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

Saying 'cheers' after verbally stabbing someone somehow just doesn't band-aid over the previous vitriol. By the way, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you. I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that, but you have continued to attack me. I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

• you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others
• You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star"
• Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack"

I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

• Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old.
• Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias.

I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning, reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes) and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I THOUGHT you said that 'All further communications from you will be ignored." I guess you changed your mind. In any case, in regards to these accusations:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

This sounds like a threat. That is, a threatening message against me and attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way. I do not for one second believe that you are in the right here and I will defend myself vigorously and will press charges in return if you choose to continue YOUR campaign of harassment. I note that YOUR Aug 24 2007 comment was extremely hateful and vile and was a disproportionate reaction to what was a considered and fair posting on the Gladys Swetland articles for deletion 'discussion' page. As Bart Versieck...who felt like you 'stabbed in the back'...said...WHY? That I happened to find out 'why' and posted your own words is my right and is relevant to the discussion result.

In regards to the WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK claim...these are unfounded. First off, until this week we often worked together. The above comment made on Aug 24 was the first indication that you wanted to cease communication...yet you continued anyway. Communication is a two-way street. You cannot 'cease' communication if you continue to do so as well. Also, the comments I made to/about you were on your message board, not in the main discussion, so I don't see how they can be seen as 'harassment' or an 'attack.' What WAS posted in the main discussion was relevant to the discussion. And I note that once again, your comments to me seem to be a 'game' of 'one-upmanship.' Considering you started it, I find it highly indefensible for you to claim some moral higher ground.

So, where do we go from here:

A. Cold War...we can agree to a truce and that's it.

B. Take it the next level. My comments were a reaction to your unbelievably vitriolic comments made first. If you choose to pursue a scorched-Earth policy, then I truly believe you are the problem. I will request mediation and third-party intervention.

The choice is yours.Ryoung122 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to post the dispute here, my case will be up shortly. Pointing out that you are violating three important Wikipolicies is not a threat. Claiming that you will "press charges" against me, however, is. Cheers, CP 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether I am violating those policies or not is not for you to decide. In fact, it seems that you violated those policies and I will be making that assertion. I also note that your comments came first.Ryoung122 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Importance on WikiProject's scope

About this edit [1] Im going to ask you to avoid tempering with project templates without asking for the reason it was rated like that before, the "Low" classification doesn't mean he wasn't important, that is the grade of priority within the project's scope, why "Low"? because we have to worry for nearly a hundred municipalities, historic events, historic figures, prominent polititians and regions before concentrating on his page, you can't compare emiliano in priority with all the island's governors who are "Mid" in classification, he was just the world's oldest man for a while but that doesn't affect our history. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are two Puerto Ricans who were the oldest man/woman in the world, do as you like but think that assessing it as "Mid" will not change its priority within the project. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ludwika Kosztyła - 110 years old - oldest polish people

http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1516784,wiadomosc.html http://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=14&ShowArticleId=55414

Final Attempt At Polite Resolution

Your comments and harassment on Bart's page were unacceptable, as my disagreements on policy are between him and I and certainly not an excuse for you to further insult me. I did, however, reply angrily and rudely here and I apologize for that to you. There's no excuse for that.

We are at a point where you have a decision to make. I am 21 years old and a university student. I am not rich. I am not sitting in a mansion eating lobster and brooding about ways to overthrow your hard work on Wikipedia. I live in a small apartment, eat ramen and study hard. I spend some of my free time on Wikipedia in hopes that I can make a minor contribution to various topics of my interest. Just as you are. I am only trying to help you understand Wikipedia and its policy. Guidelines, yes, are not set in stone, but they exist a consensus between editors to make Wikipedia as uniform and accessible as possible.

If you cannot get over my age for some reason, that's fine. I and many people around me are very proud of all my accomplishments. There are people who have done more at my age, of course, and Wikipedia is full of them. There are also a lot out there who do drugs, drink every day, smoke, sleep around and generally cause trouble for everyone. I am not one of those, and that is something in itself. I can't change the world, and I can't force you to change your opinion of me. But you should know that I have respect for your work and what you do in your field, and I would hope that you could have some for me. If not, I consider it your loss and will smile throughout.

There is a gentleman on Wikipedia who, despite being older than you and more accomplished (he too has a Wikipedia page), he is able to treat me with respect and mutual cooperation. There is no question that he has a lot that he could laud over me, but he doesn't. Instead he works with me on a project to make it better by combining both of our respective strengths to overcome each other's weaknesses. If he can do it, then I think certainly you can too.

Therefore, you have a choice. I will not stop editing Wikipedia and I will not stop enforcing Wikipedia policy, on supercentenarian pages and other pages. You can apologize for your incivility, personal attacks and harassment to me and we can get along amicably and work together on making supercentenarian article as good as they can be. You can choose not to apologize to me, but also stop harassing me. That is acceptable too, and the only difference there is that I will only assist you with supercentenarian articles insofar as pointing out the violations of Wikipedia policy (as opposed to fixing them). If you continue with personal attacks, incivility and harassment, however, then I will have no choice but to enforce Wikipedia policy and bring this to Administrative attention.

I sincerely and honestly apologize (once again) for any insults, personal attacks, incivility or perceived offenses that I may have committed. One of the most important aspects of age is maturity. I offer you everything I have and ask for very little. If you can accept this, then I think with your research and expertise and my knowledge of Wikipedia, we can do a very important and often overlooked group a great justice.

I have another issue to discuss with you, but I shall wait until I hear your response. Cheers, CP 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)