User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryoung122. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Redundancy

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

DR

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

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

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

church ads

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

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine

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

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

Timothy J Boham

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

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

Acceptability of World's Oldest Forum as RS

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

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

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

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

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

Mahavatar Babaji

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

Main Page error reports

See Talk:Main Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Biomedical Gerontology and 'Life Extension'

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

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

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

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

Discerning biomedical gerontologists from "old school" biogerontologists

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

Which ones are biomedical gerontologists?

Healthwise 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically:

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

Shameful Is As Shameful Does

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Jolley

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

How to make your signature colorful

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

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

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

It looks like this: Ryoung122

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

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

Are you familiar with this cloning technique?

Whole-cell intracytoplasmic microinjection

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

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

Healthwise 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprising

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

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

Archiving your talk page

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

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

Please don't remove day-counters

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

Thank you for correcting me when I did something stupid

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

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

DYK

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

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

Last_veterans_of_World_War_I

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

On Lamebull

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

Greetings,

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

Disrespect

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

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

Master sock-puppeteer

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

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

DEATHS - Justin Tuveri

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

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

Longevity claims

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

Reformatting of comment

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

Re: List of Wikipedians by edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contacting me

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

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

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

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

Bernard Delaire veteran WW1

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

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

Matt Sanchez

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

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

Canadian Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living people/women, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPA

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

Regarding the below statement:

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

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

Ryoung122 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion of Sukesaburo Nakanishi

Yeah, I saw that it was slightly different that the rest. But some of the keep voters argued to delete all of them, even after taking the differences into consideration, so I think the consensus was pretty clear. I won't argue, though, that lumping a bunch of articles into a single deletion nomination is always "fair" to each one individually, so if you feel it's proper, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- RG ² 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian trackers

Hi Ryoung

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

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

Maria de Jesus

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

Edit Count War II

As usual, started by the anti-list forces!

User Duk,

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

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

Now, it could be said that since:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, this problem will continue until two things occur:

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

Or:

B. Get a decree from some top person

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

That makes a decision.

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

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

Canvassing

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

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

BHG,

In regards to the below message:

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

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

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

 Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency

Friendly notice Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open

↕  ↕  ↕  ↕

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

Please note that:

A. I did not tell people how to vote

B. The messages posted were public, not private

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of a hyphen returns even more:

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 07:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear BHG,

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

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

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

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

About me:

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

etc

Some of my work was displayed at the United Nations:

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

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

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

Habib Miyan

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

WP:AN on CfD disruption

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

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

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

Ryoung122 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:

http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Erdős numbers deletion review

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

Replies

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

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

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

Barbara West

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

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

Robert J. Gamble (centenarian)

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

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

Sockpuppetry case

{| align="left" || |} You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Katr67 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

ANI again

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

Orders of magnitude of intelligence

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

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

Marie-Rose Mueller

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

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

Canvassing

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

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

Mentoring - reply

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

Stay off my talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 12:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Germaine Haye

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

AfD nomination of Stephen Coles

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

BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

Some misconceptions:

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

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

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

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

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

In such categories as

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

http://www.worldhealth.net/

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

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

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

Regarding this line of questioning:

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

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

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

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

Thus, another incorrect assertion. Need I continue?

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

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

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

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

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

Carcharoth

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Girouard Richard,

Thank you for your mail.

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

Good morning :

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

Thank you/Merci Beaucoup

Richard Girouard

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

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

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

Yours sincerely, Chad Horohoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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