User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Bart's apperance

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

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

Oldest man navbox

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

Henry Allingham

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Timeline of LGBT History

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

re: Date Links appropriate for "oldest" persons

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

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

LongevityDude

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

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

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

Deletion of place of birth info from text

As you've had a hand in this guideline, perhaps you could assist in the discussion at [1]. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Just wondering

Haha, no sir. But i made those pages of the supercentenarian deaths by year. I just enjoy researching supercentenarians and stuff like that. I began researching them since August of last year. I really enjoy it! Don't you visit supercentenarians at their own houses right?--Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Grand Slam tennis champions

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

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

I am going to moderate this dispute.TennisAuthority 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions

I will be the moderator between you and Fyunck(click) on this matter. First of all, I need to know your opinion of the dispute.TennisAuthority 23:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey I got a workable agreement on this issue between your pov and Fyunch(click) on this matter, and it needs to stay like it is because he is correct and your are in a way! If you want an explanation here it goes the slam totals do not reflect the pre-1925 French National Champs Fyunck(click) pov, but they are considered winners their to your pov. We came up with a blueish background and a star asterisk to fix this disagreement! Have a wonderful day!_BLuE^DOgTn 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

This seems to be an acceptable compromise, for now. However, it's still biased because the early Wimbledon and US. Opens were not open to international competition, either. We know for a fact that the 1881 U.S. Open was not. We don't know enough about the Australian Open, but it likely was not, either.Ryoung122 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can vouch for the Australian that they have always been receptive and allowed international players to compete, but not many tried because of the arduous travel to get their. I can say you are correct with respect to the US in the first, but that is just one no 30 or so for the French Open, which go look at the sources and it is not included in the totals of slams for each player, but I can say they are in fact French Champions. Wimbledon I can say was probably always open.^BLUE_DOGTN 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gay vs Homosexual

RE: The Homosexualist's talk page. Good study, good research, good point. Like that. On a side note I don't mind. I usually refer to myself as a "Ho-mo-sexu-al" with a southern accent to poke fun at the homophobes... I think less of us are indifferent, though. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Beard

Hi Robert,

On the latest GRG list Matthew Beard now appears as an undisputed case (and all the wiki lists I watch have been adjusted accordingly). Is this correct? If so, then hopefully there is enough info to create an article for him, which I think he deserves. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this case is still disputed, and that status likely won't change. If a new GRG table inadvertently didn't have italics, that was unintentional.Ryoung122 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Will there be an investigation on this case. 12.177.224.253 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU

I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR DOING TO HELP WIKIPEDIA, INCLUDING THE ARTICLES YOU HELPED SAVE AND EVEN THAT LIST YOUR TRYING TO HELP SAVE, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. 74.249.136.165 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphaeus Philemon Cole

Hi, may I ask you why you reverted me on the article above [2] ? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm sorry but I have not deleted or removed the succession box. If you take another look at my edit [3] - perhaps a little bit more closely - you will see that I merely repaced the format of the succession box (as given in my edit summary). For the background of this edit, you might wish to read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization#Template:Succession_box_two_to_two. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Skier Dude (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Martha Graham (supercentenarian)

Hello Mr. Young. I understand that you have a knack for digging up sources on supercentenarians. Would you mind helping with Martha Graham (supercentenarian)? I keep looking, but I end up finding next to nothing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A case like this would have been reported in the newspapers, before the "internet age." I do know that E. Ross Eckler, Jr. did a story on her in the 1970s, and there's likely some news coverage from the 1950s. She can be found in the 1900 census. And, there are already a lot of citations for that article, who do you need more?Ryoung122 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the citations aren't about her life, rather her place on the worlds oldest people. I keep looking in newspaper archives for an obit of her, but I can't find one. Do you have a link to the Eckler story? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Mind control" Accusation=POV bias

are quite negative and POV biased. It is also hypocritical of you to be talking about making people understand NPOV when you yourself do not understand it. Also, to suggest an article for deletion as a "tactic" for getting your own way is cynical and NOT in the spirit of Wikipedia. Whether an article exists or not should be determined by whether it is covering a topic that should be included, not whether you agree with the way the article is written.Ryoung122 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check the history of the article before jumping into conclusion. An experienced person like you should do more checking. The organization kept on adding the NPOV words 'many', 'numerous'. Also they insisted to include the info that the publication is free in US. Wikipedia is a worldwide domain, not a regional domain. They also copied copyrighted content into Wikipedia, in which that would violate Wikipedia's rule. As for the mind control part, please google "recovery version bible cultic?" If you do not like it, I just remove it. It is just in the discussion page. And I will withdraw myself from cleaning that article again. Thank you. Ancos (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I know a lot more about this article than you do. Those that accuse the local church of being "cultic" are the type of far-right religious freaks that others would think are themselves "cultic." Many of them were sued for libel, and lost an $11 million judgment in California in 1985. (Yes, the local church lost a lawsuit in Texas..but that's Texas for you, a Bible-belt state where only the "King James Version" of the Bible is acceptable to many...does it ever occur to them what Bible people read before King James came along? But I digress. Last I checked, there was no mass suicide at the local churches, despite more than 80 years of peaceable history some (including yourself) continue to use SLURS such as "cultic." Well, at least if you remove yourself, we'll have one less POV-biased editor on that page.Ryoung122 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Other supercentenarians

Hello Mr. Young, do you believe that it's alright to add the oldest "claimed" Brazilians, Thailand(s), Romanian(s), Peruian(s), Chinese, South Africans, and Russians to the Living national longevity recordholders list? The page isn't necessarily for verified ones. And by the way, is there a certain amount of time a person can stay on the list- such as if they have had no update in 2 years...then will they be taken off of the list? Thank you sir.--Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

German centenarians

Hi, I don't know if you understand German, however considering your interest in longevity, may I refer you to this websites [4], [5], [6]. They all deal with the German village Bärenthal, where of 450 residents currently three are older then hundred years - probably one of the highest percentages per head of population in the world. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not that impressive, given the small sample size.Ryoung122 16:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Since you didn't get a particularly constructive reply, User:Kevin redirects to User:Rdm2376, and Rdm2376/Kevin is listed as an admin, and while that's not a case of multiple accounts, and while it can be confusing and certainly has potential for abuse, it is actually permissible to have WP:MULTIPLE accounts for some reasons. Шизомби (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Johnson

Hello Mr. Robert, Merry Christmas to you sir. Im sure that you know that Elizabeth Johnson is 117 years old...well, in a few hours. Anyway, is it anyway possible for you, or anyone to contact the Care Center of Clinton and ask how she is doing? ...Or would that just be silly? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Or rather, claims to be. Remember, the "117" year-old woman in Tennessee turned out to be 104, and the "117" year-old woman in Ohio turned out to be 104. So why should we think this case any different? If the family had the records, surely they would have been sent by now.Ryoung122 04:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Deceased claims?

Hello Mr. Young once again. Im sure that you've heard of the following claims:

-Louisa Russel (b. 3 September 1897) of Australia
-Grace Talmadge (b. 23 September 1897) of United States
-Lola Norton (b. 11 October 1897) of United States

Anyway, I was wondering if you may possibly know the where abouts of them? Ive done some research on the 3 of them and I couldn't find anything at all. These 3 were brought up on the living supercentenarians talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_living_supercentenarians/Archive_2#List_of_possibly_new_candidates

Also, thank you for your hard work on keeping everything in top shape. Instead of Happy New Year, I wish u a Happy New Decade! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation at Longevity myths

Hello Ryoung122, I just wanted you to know that I've taken the mediation case requested here, and I'm offering my help as a mediator to help resolve issues at the article, specifically whether or not the "myth" classification applies to content in the article. As a mediator, I don't intend to make a decision myself, nor is it my desire to give personal opinions on who is right or wrong, but I'd like to help the two of you come to a mutually-accepted compromise. If you feel that mediation is required at the article, and are interested in participating, please let me know. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

overlinking

Thanks for catching this. I was about to post here when notification of your message appeared. Tony (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is little different that CANVASSING which is a violation of Wiki guidelines.Ryoung122 09:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea why you're accusing me. As it happened, I mistakenly posted here; it was intended for Cunard. It's striking that you're accusing anyone of violating WP's guidelines right now, when you yourself are flagrantly pursuing a campaign in breach of a WP guideline. Tony (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

MoS

Please also note that headings do not use title case, and that ... elipsis dots are spaced. I didn't fix those two aspects. Tony (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I see the argument above that led to your sudden edit to WP:LINKING. Please ask for more information if you require it. It's not that a year is important to a person (because they died in it), but whether the reader will find the year page you are linking useful. I have never seen an instance where this is the case. Tony (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"year links appropriate for oldest persons"

Hi. It has come to my attention that you are making a number of year-linking edits with an edit comment of "year links appropriate for oldest persons". Please note that there is no consensus for such a stance. To the contrary, a recent RfC resolved overwhelmingly that "the years of birth and death...should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of [the year articles] are germane to [the person in question]" (option 1). Please note that the option (No. 2) in that RfC that gave people the option of linking dates such as "the birth and death of a person" received less than one fifth of the support for option 1. If you wish to introduce refining criteria to such an overwhelming consensus, please discuss first on the Wikipedia:Linking page. Thanks.  HWV258.  10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Year linking

You edited Jiroemon Kimura, writing that "year links appropriate for "oldest persons"". Please explain why you believe this. Per Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking, linking year articles when they provide no context to the article (as is the case here) does not appear appropriate. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What a grossly misinformed comment. Isn't this man noted for his age?Ryoung122 07:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking states: "[T]he years of birth and death of architect Philip C. Johnson should not be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of 1906 and 2005 are germane to either Johnson or to architecture." This is similar to Jiroemon Kimura. Yes, the man is noted for his age but how does providing links to the year article add substance to it? Cunard (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You know about policy, but do you know about the subject? (Back to tennis).Ryoung122 07:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A glance at the page history shows that I am familiar with the topic of Jiroemon Kimura. What are your reasons for linking the birth years in biographies of "oldest persons"? Cunard (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Oldest persons" are not simply famous for themselves, but as symbols, LINKS, to the past. Therefore, including a LINK to the year of birth makes sense.

Check this article out:

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/4869231.111_year_old_Blaenavon_woman_dies/

Note born "when Queen Victoria was on the throne."Ryoung122 08:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is tangentially related to Jiroemon Kimura, so it does not add much to it. The example in Wikipedia:Linking#Year linking notes that the year articles are not pertinent to Philip C. Johnson; therefore, the year articles are not linked. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that YOU MIGHT BE WRONG? Does not Wiki policy call for attempting to "find consensus"? (back to tennis).Ryoung122 08:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's most certainly possible. I have been wrong before. Do I think I'm wrong in this instance? No, I do not. I've asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) who contacted you in the next section of your talk page, to provide a third opinion about this. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the fox watch the hen house? User Tony1 may be a "third opinion" but he's definitely not a "third party" or neutral person in this matter. He is, in fact, the man who engineered the "coup" that got rid of most Wiki date links. I would advise you to reconsider this type of collusional behavior:

"'Oldest persons' are not simply famous for themselves, but as symbols, LINKS, to the past. Therefore, including a LINK to the year of birth makes sense." This is just your opinion. Can you cite any consensus (on the level of Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll) that shows such a year link is truly useful? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You recently deleted part of the Wikipedia:Linking policy page to do with the linking of years. Just a note to remind you that the addition of that policy was as a result of an RfC that had overwhelming support. Your edit comment for the deletion was "removed POV opinion", however that cannot be the case as the wording was specifically established in the RfC text, and supported by 208 editors (far more than all the other options combined). As consensus has clearly be reached on this issue, if you wish to change or refine the policy, please take up the issue on the Wikipedia talk:Linking page. Thanks.  HWV258.  10:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung, you might tenuously be able to argue that 1897 is somewhat relevant to Jiroemon Kimura, being a year two centuries removed from today, but pray WTF linking to 2009 brings in terms of value added to the project is quite beyond me. Having said that, the vast majority of WP editors disagree with you, so abiding by consensus means that you should not impose your own view on the majority. Carrying on with linking in defiance to the discussion at WP:Linking, prior discussion at WP:DATEPOLL, and messages here on your talk page would be a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and could result in a block. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that even those persons who were pushing a policy of no date linking, saw it as a "no exceptions" policy. As you yourself said, the year 1897 is somewhat relevant to the "last man born in 1897." As another editor has mentioned, the issue of "oldest persons" should be taken to a new RFC because it wasn't the primary focus or intention (or even discussed) in the prior RFC's.Ryoung122 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfCs did not focus on any one topic but on date linking in general, and you still have not provided a convincing reason why supercenetarian articles should be the exception. Anyhow, I'm not sure the community has the stomach for yet another RfC regarding date linking. I think a WikiProject discussion would be enough. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung, I find it even more troubling that now you are inserting date links as you please even while the issue is being discussed (and you have not gained any consensus for your viewpoint). I won't revert you since I know it would be futile at this moment, but please note that this sort of behavior in defying widespread community consensus will get you blocked. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you weren't trying to twist my words: my comment stated that arguing to insert a year link, in this case 1897, was 'tenuous', it was subject to an important caveat, that few people seem to agree with you. Your reinstatement of date links without any discussion whatsoever, and your blanket reverts of edits addressing style/formatting matters is considered disruptive editing. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request II

Could you please indent all of the paragraphs in your posts? It's easy to put the required number of ":" at the start of every paragraph in a post—which makes for a more pleasing (and easier to read) post. Thanks.  HWV258.  05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn Ralston

Hello. Have you received the message that I had posted on WOP about me contacting Stuart Greenblatt who had a report on Evelyn Ralston's 109th birthday here: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:btrSfneAnE0J:www.matherlifeways.org/documents/ERalstonNEWSADVISORY10808FINAL.doc+evelyn+ralston+109&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari  ?

I contacted him on February 8th, 2010 and he told me that she is still alive as of February 9th, 2010. He said that she had celebrated her 110th birthday with family.

So..did you receive the message? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning (for good measure)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits I made were "revisions"--they were restorations of the article to what they were BEFORE you decided you didn't like it. What's most disgusting about the OVERLINK CABAL is that they totally miss the point of Wikipedia. No one pays a thousand dollars to get a fine set of Wikipedia volumes, to be placed on the bookshelf forever. They come here because Wikipedia is USEFUL, and it's most-useful features are:

1. the ability to get updated quickly (incorporating current events)

2. the ability to get amended by "anyone" (so that "anyone" noticing an error can fix it).

3. the ability to click on WIKI links (making it far easier to find out background material about a subject)

Now, I agree that the year of death is SOMETIMES less relevant, especially if the person was retired for a long time. But the year of birth (not any particular day) is a useful link in general, because it helps the reader of biography to establish the person's life in context. Biographies tell a life story, how a life developed. Surely Fernand Braudel's life was influenced by the context of his being held prisoner in WWII, but even more so for his coming of age and education at a time when the Annales school of thought was very much en vogue. Let me say this: part of the usefulness of the WIKILINK is that an article can be briefer, avoiding going too much off on tangents. But those divergences should be available to the reader who needs more background information about a particular subject. That's the real point of the WIKILINK.

Now, for the sake of compromise, I'll allow that such links were only of interest to "1 in 5" readers. But for the 4 of 5 who weren't interested, no one has to click on the link. That's the point of the link. It's why parts of Wikipedia have a compress/show button. The only argument in favor of deletion was one of window-dressing, complaining that links like this were visually distracting. But that's a digression.

Ryoung122 13:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of your overall argument, are you aware of WP:CIVIL? Referring to a group of people who you accuse of being a "cabal" as "disgusting" is clearly a breach of that policy. You can read the elements here; please note 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Tony (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"... they totally miss the point of Wikipedia". Did the overwhelming majority of editors who didn't want year links (in the recent RfC) also miss the point? Those editors didn't say "we don't want year links except in the case where they offer a link to the past" (or some such). Rudeness aside, this is a clear case of I just don't like it. Sorry, too little, too late. ("totally miss the point"?—you'll be expanding the Lame article soon if you're not careful.)  HWV258.  09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Final warning 3RR

Warning

I see that despite my warning above, not only did you decide not to heed it, you see fit to play semantics and wikilawyer your way around my objections to your continued belligerence at Jiroemon Kimura. Quite irrespective of the validity of your arguments, edit warring is not the way to go. Therefore, you are advised to consider this to be your final warning, or you will be blocked for edit warring. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is, of course, a FALSE warning, and QUITE NASTY as well. Not only was this not in violation of 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, you admit the validity of my argument. That makes YOUR argument wikilawyer, and one which would NOT HOLD UP IN A COURT OF LAW.

I will be contacting the Wikimedia Foundation to advise them of your MISbehavior.Ryoung122 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rob Young, there is nothing false about these warnings. People are aware of the valuable work you do on WP, but you have been crossing the line in terms of WP:CIVILITY, WP:3RR and a number of style guides. Please take a little time off and come back refreshed. Collaboration, not conflict, is of the essence in this project. Again, please ask me for any further information you need. Tony (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony1, the above message was a little more civil and responsible than that left by OhConfucius. However, I see no violation of the 3-Revert Rule and I see overenthusiastic enforcement of a "one-size-fits all," "zero-tolerance" policy rather than an attempt to come to a reasonable consensus. Remember, not only is Wikipedia not a democracy, but the best argument should win, not how many people i-vote for a particular line of thought. I am not the only person who supports my position. The arguments laid out for an exception to the rule seem quite reasonable.

At the least, I will agree to not add new year links, if the other editors agree not to delete existing year links, at least until February 15 (the day after Valentine's Day). Ryoung122 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• What's Valentine's Day got to do with anything? Or is it just a self-declared moratorium which expires on that day?
• I would inform you that I have initiated a thread at WP:ANI concerning your behaviour. Have a good Valentine's Day! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That didn't go anywhere, because unbiased third-party editors saw that for what it was: cyberbullying. If you can't win an argument logically, you attack the messenger. You yourself admitted that we had a point, but didn't want to concede or compromise due to personal feelings, rather than logic. That, to me, reflects poorly on you as an AVATAR. OhConfucius is not a person, but an AVATAR. Unlike you, it's quite obvious who Ryoung122 is in real life.Ryoung122 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Ryoung, would you mind archiving your page? It takes long enough to load on a relatively new laptop, and is simply a nightmare to open on my iPod. Thanks Dabomb87 (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I used to have an archiving assistant, Bart Versieck, but he was chased away from Wikipedia by cyberbullies...despite making over 19,000 edits.Ryoung122 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Longevity Myths"

I don't mind that you reverted the change. However, I don't consider it original research, I feel my change was based on policy guidelines. Using the word "myth" in the casual sense of "untrue" is considered a word to avoid. Now it may be debatable whether these accounts can be considered of indeterminable truth rather than flat-out untrue, but I did have a reason behind my change. Auntie E. (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

The outside literature (i.e., not on Wikipedia) uses the term "longevity myths" and not "traditions." Further, the word is used not in the casual sense but in the sense of "an old wive's tale" but in the sense that stories of great longevity have cultural value and meaning, just as folklore does. Scientifically, however, the evidence that these cases are false, is on the order of trillions to one odds...making the fact that these stories are false more reliable than a DNA match.Ryoung122 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Mr.Choules is, in fact, World War I's last living combatant. He took part in actual naval battles during the war. Mr. Buckles was an ambulance driver who did not see live combat. Ms. Green was a barracks waitress, and I don't think that anyone would confuse her with a combatant. Mr. Kowalski is a veteran of World War I on a technicality, and did not participate in it. Mr. Terrey's claim is dubious, and even if true, does not make him a combatant, as he claims to have been a bicycle messenger. And the recently deceased Mr. John Babcock was a veteran of World War I who did not see live combat. Mr. Choules became the last living combatant of World War I upon the death of Mr. Harry Patch last July.Mk5384 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a major issue to me, but I see Harry Patch as the last confirmed combat veteran of WWI. Choules's description of his time at sea (boring) says a lot. Perhaps I need to learn more about him, but I have not heard that he was in an actual naval battle, such as Jutland.Ryoung122 21:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian supercentenarians

Greetings, Mr. Young. I didn't know who else to ask, so please bear with me because I have a question here. I've been wondering for quite some time why the figures for Australian supercentenarians is generally poor despite their relatively high life expectancies?

• There are only two Australian supercentenarians who have reached the age of 113.
• The national longevity record of all time is not even close to 114½ years.
• On top of that, there is only ONE verified Australian supercentenarian living today.

What is your opinion on this matter? Brendanology^TalK 09:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

On the contrary, Australia's national longevity record of 114 years 148 days, for a population of just around 20 million, is far higher than expected. Germany, with some 80 million persons, has a record of 114 years 180 days (including emigrants) and Italy of 114 years 4 days (less than Australia) despite having a population three times greater. Spain's record of 114 years 81 days is also less than Australia's.Ryoung122 04:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Young. I must admit I didn't even consider the fact that Australia has a relatively low population. Thanks for illustrating it. Brendanology^TalK 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

immigrant/emigrant cases

Greetings,

I would recommend NOT changing the UK list and changing the Italian list so that the the emigrants are listed with the natives. The reason I say this is because I think it would make sense for the wikipedia lists to be consistent with the GRG lists. (Many of the GRG lists are sorted based on birthplace rather than death place). I've noticed the various country pages are very inconsistent. Some are placing Immigrants in a seperate list, some emigrants in a seperate list and some are placing both in the main list.Tim198 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's NOT true: the GRG lists emigrant cases separately:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/UK.HTM

Ryoung122 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

MARGARET FISH, WISTEAD, ENGLAND

I have made a comment on your entry on the BLP/N.--Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Where's the link?Ryoung122 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_British_supercentenarians.E2.80.8E.Jarhed (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

list of french supercentenarians

I agree with you about the emigrants being listed in an addenda and I have just re-arranged the french article in that way. Catherine Trompeter has been moved back to main list.

I'm working on a major cleanup of the country pages right now and will change all the pages to have emigrants in a seperate file but it's a slow process. Most of the pages have numerous errors and misspellings (and on the canadian page someone decided that certain cases (such as Bessie Roffey) weren't even worthy of being listed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim198 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neva Morris

Hi Robert,

I was wondering since there was a huge birthday celebration for Gertrude Baines on 6 April 2009 on her 115th birthday, is there going to be one for Neva Morris if she turns 115 years old on 3 August? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the birthdays, it's about the ranking: Gertrude was being recognized as "world's oldest person." Kama Chinen is set to turn 115 on May 10, no word on whether anything will transpire there.Ryoung122 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

French Algeria

You recently changed all the flags of those who were born in Algeria to the old flag of French Algeria. We need to change it back because all the other pages are based on current flags/countries/borders. (see for example the Australian page where the current state/territory flags are used even though the state/territories didn't exist when the super-c's were born) Again, we need some consistency here.Tim198 (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We need to use COMMON SENSE here. Algeria at the time was considered "part of France." If you want to push it, we could use just the French flag. I think noting the geographical variation of people's birthplace is notable, but to associate a French-born, French-named, Catholic person with the Islamic Algerian flag is a violation of WP:FLAG.Ryoung122 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Offensive language

The use of the term "retarded" to characterize something with which you disagree is not only childish, but also incredibly offensive (and unnecessary, in a language so rich with pejoratives). I suggest you improve your rhetorical vocabulary. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

While what I said was directed at an idea and not a person, what YOU said (above) is directed at a person. I disagree that use of the term "retarded" in this situation is childish. The very intent was to suggest that the ideas being discussed are so far from common-sense reality that they are, in fact, "retarded."Ryoung122 00:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

113 yr old claimed living Australian

I remember there was an article on WOP about a 113 yr old lady who claimed to be born in 1896 from Australia. I think she had children that are in their 50s or 60s. Do you know her name? Im having trouble locating the article on WOP. Thank you Robert. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a Chinese-born woman who claimed to be 113.Ryoung122 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You know her name? Do you have access to the url? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed claims

On the page, I want to create another column like you said, I like that idea. Now when you mean "verified", do you mean just the supercentenarian cases, or all the validated cases including centenarians, nonagenarian, octogenarian, septuagenarian, etc.? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sylvester Magee

I can't seem to find anything about his age being younger. So can I add him to the Longevity claims section? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he was last mentioned circa 2000, when he claimed to be 117. I would have to check.Ryoung122 09:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

Greetings,

A few comments

First of all, it's quite clear that you don't know the definition of the word debunked. Here's the definition courtesy of dictionary.com

–verb (used with object)

to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

Moses Hardy claims to have been born in January 1893. However, Louis Epstein lists January 1894 as the official birthdate on his site (yes he notes that some records indicate an 1893 birthdate but the offical birthdate on his site is given as 1894). By doing this, Epstein is debunking the claim: He's exposing the 1893 birth claim as being exaggerated. Yes, the case is validated in the sense that he's still a super-c and I agree that he should remain on certain lists as appropriate. The reason I removed from the oldest people is list is because he wouldn't be one of the 100 oldest people if he were born in 1894 (obviously).

Second, What I did by removing the Hardy claim is NOT original research. The Epstein list is considered a reliable source. Louis Epstein is the chairman of the committee for GRG and the information contained on his website has been cited in numerous newspaper articles.

As far as Martha Graham is concerned, I removed her based on what you said on the list of living supercentenarians talkpage. You said that we shouldn't allow cases that don't have an exact birthdate. So I don't understand why you have a problem with me removing Graham from the list. I know that she was in the Guiness book but (and correct me if I'm wrong here) aren't you in charge of the longevity section of Guiness? So why can't you just retract her claim? For that matter, why can't you just retract all of the disputed cases such as Izumi, White, Hongo etc...? I think that a lot of people would like to see these cases removed (I know this because I've caught several annonymous IP's trying to remove them in the past and I reverted their edits). You're in a position of power with your job at Guiness and I suggest you use it to appeal to masses. Tim198 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Terresa Spady

Hello,

I can't believe this man hasn't been brought up again. He was an African-American who claimed to have been born on June 17, 1894 in Northampton, Virginia and died on November 26, 2009 in Norfolk City, Virginia at the claimed age of 115 years, 162 days. So far, here is what I found of him (call it what you want).:

• SSDI says he's 115: [7]

• 1900 US Federal Census lists him as aged 6 (roll mouse over View Record to see) - [8]

• World War I & World War II Draft Registration cards (Somebody on WOP said that he had some service record in WWI): - [9]

• US Search (Secondary-source information) says he's 115: [10]

I believe you were the one that said that the earlier the census record, the more accurate it's likely going to be. So, if he is telling the truth about his age and service, he would be the oldest veteran to ever live, for he would be 6 days older than Emiliano Mercado del Toro of Puerto Rico, aged 115 years, 156 days old, the current record holder. And be the 2nd oldest non-disputed male ever behind Christian Mortensen of Denmark, aged 115 years, 252 days.

Ofcourse, we don't know if he may have been turned down (e.g. race). Just like the case with Hilliard Hudson, he had a Draft registration card in WWI that was on Ancestry. But he may have been turned down, for he was black as well, or it could be for any reason.

I'd atleast like to get to the bottom as to whether or not his age is true. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia is NOT the place for original research. If you have a new case/finding, please post at the WOP group here:

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

Please note that, at this point, we have NO PROOF that he died at age 115. Please note that Social Security records can be woefully wrong. For example, a woman born in 1883, Clemmie Wilson, died in 1971 at age 88, but her Social Security record wasn't updated until 1998...so she "lived" another 27 years, on paper.

The lack of any stories regarding a claim that this man was alive at any age past 85 is a bad sign.

Viewing 1-6 of 6 Name Birth Death Last Residence Last Benefit SSN Issued Tools Order Record? ELIZABETH L CARR 27 Mar 1894 16 Sep 2009 (V) 04401 (Bangor, Penobscot, ME) (none specified) 005-24-6419 Maine SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record TERRESA SPADY 17 Jun 1894 26 Nov 2009 (V) 23505 (Norfolk, Norfolk City, VA) (none specified) 223-64-6005 Virginia SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record GERTRUDE BAINES 06 Apr 1894 11 Sep 2009 (V) 90018 (Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA) (none specified) 272-16-0783 Ohio SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record VIRGINIA CALL 03 Jan 1894 10 Feb 2009 (V) 60615 (Chicago, Cook, IL) (none specified) 360-42-2721 Illinois SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record RALPH R COCHRAM 14 Oct 1894 05 May 2009 (V) 85610 (Elfrida, Cochise, AZ) (none specified) 516-26-3325 Montana SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record NELLIE L TAYLOR 21 Sep 1894 25 Oct 2009 (V) (FO) (none specified) 537-05-5193 Washington SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com Click here to order a copy of the original record Viewing 1-6 of 6

(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member. (P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.

Checking above, we see that his document only has a "V"--basically information updated from a phone call, not a document. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we would need to obtain a death certificate from 2009 before we have a reason to consider this a potentially validated case. Note that the word "verified" used by the Social Security Administration is NOT the same as "VALIDATED" used by age researchers.

Ryoung122 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Winn/Wynn

Greetings,
I refer to your recent edit to Daisey Bailey, changing the spelling of Mississippi Wynn to Winn. I have noticed that multiple pages on Wikipedia spell her surname as Wynn, including this, this, and this. I'm not saying you're wrong, because the GRG's Table E DOES spell it as Winn, but I was just wondering if you could clear things up? Thank you for your attention. Brendanology^ContriB 01:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Winn is correct. Originally, the GRG has spelled it "Wynn" based on a 110th-birthday news report. However, later when we got the actual ID documents, and the family pointed out, the correct spelling is "Winn."Ryoung122 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Brendanology^ContriB 11:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Pfeiffer

These two pages give different dates of death for Pfeiffer: [11] [12] SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you check the second record, it was last updated in 2003 while the first record dates to 2007. The SSA study, when dates of death were not immediately available, randomly assigned death dates of 1, 15, or 30 as the month and year were known. Later, when records from the NDI (National Death Index) came in, those dates were revised as new information.Ryoung122 19:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Kise Endoh

Greetings,
I wanted to bring your notice to this.
There is a Kise Endoh in here, born 28 December 1893 and stated to have died between December 2004 and September 2005. There is another Kise Endoh in List of Japanese supercentenarians, also born 28 December 1893 and stated to have died on 3 March 2005. Could you explain this? Brendanology^ContriB 07:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be a citation of itself. Do you not understand this? Both articles need OUTSIDE sourcing. What does the OUTSIDE sourcing say?Ryoung122 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was the death dates given are inconsistent between two pages on Wikipedia. I wanted to clear the air with you. Brendanology^ContriB 09:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sequoia

WP:COMMONNAME? I'm not convinced since where I live Sequioa would be a more common search term. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

However, you apparently live in the UK/England/Great Britain. As coast redwoods are native to the USA, they should reflect USA naming preference. A child in elementary school knows what a "redwood" is. To be honest, we could make the name even more common. "Sequoia" is confusing: it's neither a scientfic name (just part of it) nor a common name, as commonly it means "giant sequoia" (another source of confusion). To avoid this, in English the terms "Coast Redwood" and "Giant Sequoia" or just "redwood" and "sequoia" are used. As one of the most-widely known of all plant species, this isn't the place for scientific names first.Ryoung122 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You misspelled "sequoia" which shows how confusing THAT name is.Ryoung122 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ryoung122. You copy-n-pasted the move from Sequoiadendron to Giant Sequoia, which I just undid. This had two unfortunate side effects:

1. The edit history was lost. (If necessary, we can ask an admin to move the pages)
2. You redirect at the top of the page was to Giant sequoia (note capitalization), so there was a circular redirect.

This seemed like a potentially controversial move (see, e.g., Rodhullandemu's comment above), so I started a Requested Move discussion at Talk:Sequoiadendron. Since you want to move, why don't you start the discussion? —hike395 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have undid the cut/paste move of Sequoia for the same reasons noted by hike395. These are definitely controversial moves, seek consensus before moving, and use the correct methods if the moves are approved please.--Kevmin (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The REAL controversy here is that there existed a walled garden where Wiki-editors form tribal alliances to ensure that border on issues of WP:OWN. As evident from the talk page prior, past editors have also moved the articles to the names used by the general public, rather than insist on some pseudo-elitist notion of naming these tree species by their scientific genus name (rather than their scientific name). NO ONE calls a giant sequoia a "sequoiadendron." To have the article named that is a VIOLATION of one of Wikipedia's core policies that states that articles are supposed to be based on outside sources, and Wikipedia's core policy tenet of "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" strongly opposes using Wikipedia as the place for synthesis or new information. In other words, these articles SHOULD reflect the outside sources. I would strongly suggest that these articles be correctly renamed to their "common" name, while splitting out a separate article for the genus.

The current situation is not in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies, which overrride any specific policy guidelines some may have inserted into the "Tree of Life" project.

In short, if a computer had to answer the question: are giant sequoias commonly or even sometimes referred to as "sequoiadendron", the computer could easily answer "NO." Too bad humans cannot do the same.Ryoung122 03:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Couting error

Here: http://www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2008.HTM see rank 42, somebody made a calculated error. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi Robert,

I don't know how to, or have the authority to, block users, if I did it would have certainly done by now! I usually ask User:Canadian_Paul to semi-protect longevity related articles to stop the anonymous vandals and disruptive editors. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Country recordholders

Hello,

I believe that the Living national longevity recordholders should be merged into National longevity recordholders, or reversed. The oldest and oldest living people by us state were merged together into one article, why not country recordholders?

I say it's a great idea to merge the country recordholders into one! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe "National Longevity Recordholders" should be kept. Merging is not a bad idea, but it does make editing more difficult. I'm also concerned because the "living" list tends to have persons who are not really recordholders...UNvalidated claims. I don't want UNvalidated claims to be used as validated, all-time records.Ryoung122 03:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Known for

I see. Always glad to learn. Brendanology^ContriB 12:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion is here

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maria Eriksson

Hello Robert,

Swedish articles say that she is the oldest living Swede. And yet, there hasn't been a report on Saro Dursun's death in any of these recent articles. Are the authors just making poor judgement, or is Saro Dursun really deceased?

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've mailed the Aftonbladet journalist, since she didn't even mention Saro's claim in the article. She answered: "nobody's sure wether Saro's birth date is correct, so that's why it's said Maria is the oldest". I replyed & asked for an article on Saro's whereabouts, since I've never seen one. If she's not 110, she may still be well over 100 & may be one of the last remaining wittnesses of the armenian genocide in 1915 - though I don't even know her etnicity, just got a few hints from googling her name that maybe she's not from the turkish majority. The local paper Upsala Nya Tidning commented that there's an older claimant, but Maria is the oldest verified. Swedish birth records for people born in Sweden are very reliable. Time to put Maria in the verified list? Hepcat65 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The time to put Maria on the verified list is when she is listed in an international list maintained by experts, such as:

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

or here:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html

Until that time, the case should be on the "unverified" list.Ryoung122 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, you don't have to state the obvious. Since you're a senior investigator for GRG, my comment above was a lighthearted push that you should learn about the very reliable records on swedish born swedish citizens, it could actually make it easier to validate such a case for your organisation than a case from countries without birth records or without personal identification numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepcat65 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is a fun website linked to the swedish register of living persons, Ratsit. If you write 1899 in the third column from the top and press sök (=search), you'll find Saro Dursun, and if you fill in 1900, you'll find this years supercentenarians (if they make it). The foreign sounding name without an adress is probably a former immigrant who went home to the old country and died there, nobody telling the swedish authorities about it. The other two in Solna and Angered would be doubtful cases like Saro. Have fun, Hepcat65 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I find your comment surprising. This case itself has a problem: was she born March 27 or 28? In any case, there are a lot of older claimants to get to first.Ryoung122 03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I Didn't know there was a problem with the case. Well, in both cases she's 110 now. Just trying to be helpful with info about the swedish situation -but you probably already have correspondents here. Hepcat65 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Robert, would you like me to add an archive bot to your talk page, it's getting rather large! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem.Ryoung122 18:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the bot, it should start archiving in a day. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

Hello Robert,

some comments

First of all, it's becoming pretty clear to me that I'm not going to win the debate regarding Moses Hardy's age. I'm just going to have to accept the decisions of the editors and move on. It does bother me, though, that NOT ONE PERSON spoke up when I made the proprosal regarding Hardy and Graham on the talkpage of List of the verified oldest people and only when I actually implemented the changes do people start to complain.

Regarding your first point, I can't comment on the Kott case as I know very little about it. But I will say that if there is strong agreement from the various early life records to support the 1879 birth then I believe that's acceptable. Again, I know very little about the case so I can't comment on the 1879 vs 1880 debate.

Regarding Graham, I don't believe she should be listed. A person can't be validated if they don't even have a birthdate. In addition to consistency I also believe in accuracy. From what I've read, not only does Martha Graham not have a birth date, but the earliest record that supports her age is the 1900 census (which is well outside the 20 year rule). I have no idea how or why Guinness accepted this case in the first place.

The goal of wikipedia is to retain a NPOV. And, currently, I don't believe that's being done. Re-instating the 1893 birthdate for Moses Hardy and then adding a footnote (written in fine-print, no less) saying that he 'could' have been born in 1894 and then burying it at the bottom of the page where nobody will see it is not a good idea. Regarding the disputed cases in general, I think something else other than including an addendum could be done to make the page have a more NPOV. I'd recommend either listing the disputed cases in a seperate table or leaving them where they are now and leaving them unranked. I'm firmly entrenched is the 'skeptics' camp (as I'm sure you've figured out by now) and I believe the page leans to heavily in the 'believers' POV right now.

Lastly, I want to say that I do respect your work and the work of other members of GRG. But again, I'd recommend that you try to maintain a neutral point of view. For example, on your list of the 200 verified oldest people which you added a couple months ago you include all the disputed cases but yet don't include anything that favors the skeptics view (not even an addendum). Again, I think you should maintain a more neutral stance.

Best regards,

Tim198 (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm going to say this: the very necessity of having a "validated" is skepticism. Please note that at issue here is process: if a case is questionable, someone should print evidence to suggest the age is not correct in a reliable source, before the GRG or anyone begins to withdraw them from the lists. Rumors alone are not enough. Right now, from Izumi to Carrie White, this has not been done. However, I am going to say this: that may change before the year is out, as the Max Planck Institute's book on "Supercentenarians" is due out in July.Ryoung122 00:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cooper

I reverted your change at Besse Cooper because the reference supports the claim it was attached to, and your edit was uncited. I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily, but surely you're aware of our sourcing guidelines...all the more so given the kind of work you do.  Frank  |  talk  19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to cite myself, that's for YOU to do.

HINT: the source you cited was incorrect.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-21-beatrice-farve_N.htmRyoung122 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So we have conflicting sources. Can you give me something more to work with?  Frank  |  talk  02:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One has to understand that the news often reports "as was then known."

If you check the GRG list, 2009 deaths, you'll see that the Beatrice Farve case wasn't accepted until January 6, 2008.

Thus, to be technical, you could say 'was thought to be the oldest Georgian' following the death of Anne Christopher in Oct 2007. By January 2008, a new case had emerged. More than a year later, Ms. Cooper "regained" the title.Ryoung122 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost Made it List

I heard you have 109 year olds who had to be 109 years, 265-364 days old. Anyway, I came across several of them:

• Gladys DeGroat: April 21, 1899 - March 24, 2009 (109 years, 337 days) United States
• Ruth Hamilton: April 21, 1898 - January 18, 2008 (109 years, 272 days United States
• Merle Opperman: February 3, 1900 - February 1, 2010 (109 years, 363 days) United States
• Rut Mikaelsson: October 16, 1899 - August 24, 2009 (109 years, 312 days) Sweden
• Pierre Picault: February 27, 1899 - November 20, 2008 (109 years, 267 days) France
• Robert Meier: March 10, 1897 - January 29, 2007 (109 years, 325 days) Germany
• Léon Roger Weil: July 16, 1896 - June 6, 2006 (109 years, 324 days) France
• Claude-Marie Boucaud: August 12, 1895 - May 17, 2005 (109 years, 278 days) France
• Arthur E. Cook: May 4, 1895 - March 24, 2005 (109 years, 324 days) United States
• Giacomo Terrando: August 7, 1894 - June 25, 2004 (109 years, 323 days) Italy
• Joseph E. Doan, Jr.: January 14, 1895 - November 6, 2004 (109 years, 297 days) United States
• Georg Bredtschneider: March 23, 1892 - March 7, 2002 (109 years, 349 days) Germany
• Raymond Abescat: September 10, 1891 - August 25, 2001 (109 years, 349 days France
• Théophane Rifosta: September 6, 1889 - June 16, 1999 (109 years, 283 days) France
• Guðrún Björnsdóttir: October 20, 1888 - August 26, 1998 (109 years, 310 days) Iceland/Canada
• Fritz Bösch: February 25, 1877 - November 25, 1986 (109 years, 273 days) Switzerland
• Enrico Danucci: September 3, 1833 - May 27, 1943 (109 years, 266 days) Ireland
• Elizabeth Kensley: May 12, 1855 - March 6, 1965 (109 years, 298 days) United Kingdom
• Juan Carlos Vega: June 25, 1900 - March 30, 2010 (109 years, 278 days) Mexico
• Arbelia Wood: April 6, 1895 - March 11, 2005 (109 years, 339 days) United States
• Roberta Weston: August 9, 1896 - June 25, 2006 (109 years, 320 days) United States
• Tero Coleman: February 11, 1891 - December 15, 2000 (109 years, 308 days) United States
• Katherine Misialek: December 19, 1879 - November 11, 1989 (109 years, 327 days) United States
• Margarethe Sauer: January 18, 1867 - January 14, 1977 (109 years, 362 days) Germany
• Bessie Wildfang: September 3, 1895 - August 18, 2005 (109 years, 349 days) United States
• Esther Hawk: November 8, 1883 - October 11, 1993 (109 years, 337 days) United States
• Elmire Young: April 7, 1891 - March 18, 2001 (109 years, 345 days) United States
• Sally Gappell: March 23, 1899 - January 23, 2009 (109 years, 306 days) United States
• Adah Boeke: April 23, 1900 - March 4, 2010 (109 years, 315 days) United States
• Kathleen Wojan: December 17, 1899 - December 4, 2009 (109 years, 352 days) United States
• Tillie Friedrich: October 19, 1899 - August 23, 2009 (109 years, 308 days) United States
• Daisy Murphy: June 3, 1899 - May 31, 2009 (109 years, 362 days) United States

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I list people who died within 90 days of turning 110. Some of the above, such as Victor Henneteau, would not qualify. Also, this is not really appropriate for Wikipedia as this is an issue regarding something off-Wiki. I suggest contacting me via the WOP group.Ryoung122 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed some errors on top btw. Do you want me to post a topic on WOP of 109 year olds who just missed it? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Only post a case if it is "NEW"--that is, not posted on WOP yet. Run a search for each one, first.Ryoung122 00:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick, the VAST MAJORITY of these cases I already have. I already suggested that you go through the above list and delete the entries that are already clearly posted on the GRG page.Ryoung122 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the url on the GRG page of the 109 year olds? I lost it. I won't add anymore to this list. I will delete the list above eventually. I have to search through almost the whole SSDI for 109 yr. olds. Well, as much as I can. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

See at the bottom of Table BB.Ryoung122 17:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Longevity template

Hello Robert,

Should we add all the pages missing on the longevity template? Here are some examples from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_people_by_age:

• List of oldest living major league baseball players
• List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members
• List of oldest Catholic bishops
• List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity
• List of oldest surviving professional wrestlers

NO. I think the above types of lists are well-served by "lists of people by age." These type of sub-categories, to me, are not a good idea. Where does it end? Oldest U.S. presidents? Oldest basketball players? The lists we have now are much more INCLUSIVE...that is, anyone can be on them; the only requirement is the person's age, not their function/role in society.Ryoung122 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oldest living Brit?

Hello Robert,

Did you, a UK correspondent, or someone else from the GRG mention Eunice Bowman being alive after Florrie's passing? There have been no mentions on WOP, articles etc., that I've seen. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"False" and "Exaggerated" Cases

Hello Mr. Young,

I would like to know what you would define as "false" and "exaggerated", as descriptions for supercentenarian claims that have been debunked. I see two possibilities. I shall use examples to illustrate this.

• Jennie Pranno, claimed birth 24 February 1900, died 12 May 2010, claimed age 110 years, 77 days, and who was debunked as 109. Would she be considered false (because the debunking robbed her of supercentenarian status), or would she be considered exaggerated (because the age differential was a minor one of 1 year)?
• Ida Stewart (unverified), claimed birth 1886 and now believed to have been born in 1896. Would she be considered false (because the age differential was a large one of 10 years), or exaggerated (because she still "was" a supercentenarian even after debunking)? Brendanology^ContriB 13:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, Jennie Pranno would be "false" because she was not 110 but 109, whereas Ida Stewart would be "exaggerated" because she may still be over 110...although that remains unproven.Ryoung122 05:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

...Huh. I noticed your "'400' Cases" file on the WOP (good work, by the way!) Your explanation was also what I originally assumed; however, I have noticed cases such as Bessie Thomas, listed as (claimed) age 112 and debunked by the SSDI as being 106. She is listed on the table as being exaggerated. In addition, there are cases such as Lossie Hopkins listed as (claimed) age 114 and also debunked by the SSDI at 110...and she is listed as false.

Thoughts? Brendanology^ContriB 12:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? If there's a typo I'll fix it.Ryoung122 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

...I thought I'd already cited your "400 Cases" file on the WOP. I also noticed that it serves as the basis for List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, though the comment on whether the case is false or exaggerated is absent, as it's likely OR. Brendanology^ContriB 12:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not correct, the list of "400" cases are SSA cases that I'm working on.

I would suggest you e-mail me privately at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com to discuss this further. This is a public forum and the purpose of this message board is to discuss things on Wikipedia, not off-Wiki matters.Ryoung122 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll keep this in mind. Thank you for your advice. Brendanology^ContriB 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

William Fullingim: Is he for real?

Hello,

I recently noticed an edit to Oldest people, adding William Fullingim (7 July 1855 - 6 August 1965) to the list of chronological list of the oldest living people since 1955. I have yet to see a citation mentioning him, if at all. I initially wanted to remove him myself, but decided to seek professional advice about Fullingim's reliability, so I decided to ask you first. Thoughts? --Brendanology^ContriB 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's for real. If you are a member of the WOP group, you can search the messages. Also note here:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.htmlRyoung122 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for clarifying that.

By the way, thanks for wishing me happy birthday! I honestly didn't think you'd find the time to do that. Thanks! Brendanology^ContriB 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Local Church controversies

Hi Ryoung122, thank you for your participation in the article Local Church controversies. Since you asked, here is a detailed explanation of why Shakier1983's edit was reverted:

1. This is a copyright violation. Wikipedia requires that all text from sources without an explicitly "open" license allowing their use on Wikipedia to be treated as under copyright. This means that you cannot copy and paste content from other websites and expect it to remain. Please see WP:COPYPASTE for more information.
   1. The summary appears to be derived from the Christian Research Journal, a copyright publication that typically cannot be accessed without a paid subscription.
   2. As I told Shakier1983, the user who added it, anyone is free to quote from copyrighted material or cite it to support a claim. But you cannot simply copy and paste things without attribution. Again, please see WP:COPYPASTE.
2. The article already contains the rebuttal. Perhaps you did not notice it? The article Local Church controversies currently states the following:

However, not all in the evangelical community agree that Living Stream Ministry and the local churches have departed from orthodox Christianity. In recent years, prominent apologists, theologians, and ministers have published their support for Living Stream Ministry and the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. More recently, two books were published by DCP Press in relation to much Christian fellowship with elders from a few localities and leading members of LSM. One book includes the conclusions of research by Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, and Fuller Theological Seminary. The other has a statement about the beliefs of the parties in question.

In the forward to CRI's article, Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaff commented that “the local churches are an authentic expression of New Testament Christianity”and“I stand shoulder to shoulder with the local churches when it comes to the essentials that define biblical orthodoxy.” A recent issue of the CRI's Christian Research Journal, entitled We Were Wrong, was published whereby Hank Hanegraaff affirmed that, the local churches is not a cult.

In January 2006, Fuller Theological Seminary released a two-page statement stating that, "Fuller Theological Seminary (Fuller) and leaders from the local churches and its publishing service, Living Stream Ministry (LSM), have recently completed two years of extensive dialog" and that "It is the conclusion of Fuller Theological Seminary that the teachings and practices of the local churches and its members represent the genuine, historical, biblical Christian faith in every essential aspect."

In February 2007, "Apologetics Conclusions Reconsidered...A Case in Point: The Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry" was published in support of Living Stream Ministry by veteran apologist and Answers in Action director Gretchen Passantino. Passantino commented that "the churches affiliated with the teachings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee and with the Living Stream Ministry (LSM) embrace and teach orthodox Christian theology, are a Christian movement of brothers and sisters in Christ, and should not be labeled theologically heretical nor as a 'cult.'"

Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA) accepted Living Stream Ministry in 2002 with full voting membership.

If you have any suggestions to improve the article, you are certainly welcome to talk about them at Talk:Local Church controversies, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a soap box for promotion of the local churches, nor is it a place to attack the local churches. We strive to have our articles conform to a neutral point of view, and these rules are meant to be applied evenly regardless of who edits. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As to why I am calling it plagiarism, well, try Googling the phrases used in the edit. The copied summary appears to have content that has been copied from the Christian Research Journal (Maybe it came from the Bereans forum, perhaps? or another website?) and also with a sentence or two from an internal memo (quoted on sites such as a personal blog and Last Adam). There isn't a citation to tell us which website the wording was copied from.

Please see WP:Quotation - it is ok to quote material, but there were no quotation marks and there was no citation. Even IF it is meant as a quotation, it is still too long. As WP:Quotation states, "The copied material should not comprise a substantial portion of the work being quoted, and a longer quotation should not be used where a shorter quotation would express the same information." I would encourage you (and the person who made the edit) to read WP:Citing sources to learn how to cite material instead of copying and pasting it. As I pointed out above, We Were Wrong is already mentioned in the article, and the conclusions are already summarized there. Thank you, -- Joren (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me the diffs

Unless you've got diffs to show, please retract, or better yet redact, your unfounded accusation of anti-gay comments. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, Ryoung. While I don't know how this dispute started, your accusing David of making anti-gay comments is highly inappropriate, at the very least because you posted no diffs. However, even if you had, I would not consider dredging up such unpleasantness to be conducive to improving an article, and it probably constitutes a personal attack. I highly recommend a redaction, if not because your comments were unfair to David, then because that sort of comment reflects poorly on yourself as a contributor. Moreover, we all lose face in this sort of situation. Please redact. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will check on this. What' I'm saying is that DavidinDC had a history of "targeting" articles that I created, and this history smacks of inappropriate editing. I find it highly offensive that no one is calling out David for his careless remarks, which I plan to investigate further.Ryoung122 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarize my reply to your note on my user talk, I am unimpressed with the edits you suggested that I read. I am more concerned about your edits. Please redact your accusation of David making "anti-gay comments". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In re: "What' I'm saying is that DavidinDC had a history of "targeting" articles that I created, and this history smacks of inappropriate editing." I answered this accusation the day you made it, in January of 2009. Perhaps you missed it. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it

		The Original Barnstar
		Despite encountering disagreements time and again here, you still continue to contribute tirelessly to Wikipedia, as well as clearing up doubts and misconceptions with other Wikipedians about supercentenarian-related facts. I doubt any of the supercentenarian articles on Wikipedia would ever have gotten as far as they have without your contributions. Wikipedia's supercentenarian articles would never have survived as long as they have without people like you. Well done, Ryoung122. BrendanologyContriB 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Paul Baltes

In 2006 you started the article about Paul Baltes - it is marked with a "missing notability" template since January 2009 - I am not an expert of these guidelines, but this seems strange to me. Unfortunately I am not a frequent contributor here, because my English is too bad. Perhaps this template should be simply removed? Best wishes Plehn (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just see that you was involved in a small edit war about this problem Plehn (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

this discussion is old and can be deleted or archived. Fortunately, the notability of Paul Baltes is clear. Ridiculous problem. Plehn (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Further blanket removals of edits will be reported as edit warring. Please see WP:OWN. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked — shocked— to find and accusation based on WP:OWN is going on here!

David in DC (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

David in DC: STAY OFF MY PAGE OR I WILL REFER YOU TO ARBCOM. The above is clearly a conflict of interest given your prior history with me. You are NOT impartial.

2tuntony is an editor who didn't even exist until a few days ago, and his edits FAILED TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS, CONSULT SOURCES, AND WERE IN MANY CASES INCORRECT. I WILL BLANKET-REVERT INCORRECT EDITS. If there are acceptable edits to be made, they should be made one at a time, starting with the non-controversial edits first.Ryoung122 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: 2tuntony backed off, but I'm suspicious given that a "new" editor is already citing "RS" and using other Wiki-speak terms. Is 2tuntony a sockpuppet?Ryoung122 02:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I "backed off"? OK, then. I "backed off" after you finally stopped your disruptive editing. As far as your "sock puppet" nonsense, which you seem to have based on the fact that someone actually bothered to familarize himself with the place before joining, I believe the appropriate link is WP:SPI. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was your editing that was disruptive, going against consensus and failing to consult the "talk" page first.

Fortunately you came to your senses, but false accusations such as WP:OWN is little more than wiki-lawyering. You made the accusation (above) first, so who was the real disruptive one?Ryoung122 05:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Get yourself some help, dude. 2tuntony (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I would let u know that Jozef Kowalski is for the moment not verified therefore he can be added on any wiki lists or else. His case is very difficult.Anthony GRG correspondent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)