User talk:SenSo

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Alia Sabur. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this libelous? Are you saying you believe she was younger by a whopping 2 days? That's nonsensical.

Please tell me the official source that states he was 18 years and 363 or 364 days old.

No libel, just using common sense.

The sources are already in the article Alia Sabur. Please do not revert the article to include unsourced material. In particular, beware that Wikipedia's three revert rule prohibits the sort of edit warring that you are carrying out at this article. If you want to change the article, you must provide a source. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I give up. You believe the 2-day (or at best 6 days sense neither of their birth years were leap years and both were born in the month of February) chance. I feel that is pushing the odds. I also believe that she was "rushed-to-hire" only to beat that record and not because she is actually teaching.

I'll try to post the sites here, and not on her bio page, that state she is not even teaching yet. I believe she is not teaching because she has not yet completed her Ph.D..

No Ph.D. and not yet teaching = not a professor IMHO.

You want a reference... how about http://www.newsday.com/news/local/education/ny-liwhiz0422,0,4370375.story

You'll note the story was written in April. It states that she will not start working at the University until "next month." So, she was hired but not actually doing the job and works as a Ph.D. but does not have said credentials. Sounds shady to me. Almost like somebody was trying to break the record officially, but not technically. I am a man of logic, not emotion. Official without meeting the technical means, to me, that people are accepting something that has been proven wrong.

Unfortunately, no matter how well reasoned your arguments are (and personally I have a lot of respect for them) we cannot use them. We have to rely on what the published sources say on the subject. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research are strongly enforced when it comes to biographies of living persons. So, for now at least, we say that she's the world's youngest professor. If and when someone challenges this publicly, we will report that too. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Cisgender

Hi,

Please don't mark an edit as "minor" that isn't purely correcting typographical errors or punctuation. Help:Minor edit says: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." The reason for this is that some editors have their watchlist preferences set not to display changes that are marked as minor. Thanks. SparsityProblem (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have any references that are not from a questionably biased source?

SenSo (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) SenSo[reply]

There's already a citation to an academic journal article. You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]