User talk:Ryoung122: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:09, 24 September 2007 editCanadian Paul (talk \| contribs)Administrators101,731 edits →Acceptability of World's Oldest Forum as RS ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:53, 24 September 2007 edit undoVivianDarkbloom (talk \| contribs)409 edits →Shameful Is As Shameful Does: new sectionNext edit →
Line 1,369:		Line 1,369:

	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.] 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)		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.] 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 , note that the sources are far less reliable than those for Ellenbogen, that the advertising content is much higher, and tell me again that Misplaced Pages's varying treatment of women's notability isn't goddam reprehensible. If you can do it, that is, without your nose growing longer. ] 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:53, 24 September 2007

Supercentenarians

I had to sift through your compaints to[REDACTED] management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.

First of all, if I make a mthematical error or a mistake on somebody's page. It's an error, that's what it is. Considering the less than thurough ways in which you've been updating pages (you didn't even try to fix the succession boxes) you don't have much room to complain to management. I looked back and realized I made a mistake with Thomas Peters death date. I guess you've never made a mistake in your life. Also, Thomas Peter's didn't have a page before I put it up so when it comes to him at least I made an attemp to bring more information to wikipedia. The mistake about Jeane Klement reaching 120 years 238 days on Oct 17 1995 (not Oct 4 1995) was a mistake I DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED MUSELF!!!! yet you felt the need to complain about it.

Secondly... nice teamwork. Thanks for taking me seriously. Here I am, willing to help organize the information you provided (because even I know that you are the expert in this and not me) and you spit in my face. I apreciate it. Maybe I'll send a letter to your superiors at Guinness since you feel so comfortable representing them in this fasion.

I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized.--Dr who1975 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read over your detailed response. Part of my point is that this not a job. That was the nature of my "threats" to take it to your higher ups. You wouldn't do it at a job so why would you do it here. I’m doing it in my spare time too.

I hadn't talked to you because, as I said in my message "I tried looking for you when all this started with Bart but I didn't realize the R was capitalized". I tend to try to talk to people on wikipedia.

I will try to avoid spelling mistakes in the future (maybe paste my stuff into MS word before hitting save) but if you see a mistake you can correct it yourself you know. That's the beauty of wikipedia. It's not like I'm going to come back with a reversal and go "THAT MISTAKE WAS INETNTIONAL". Sorry if the errors bug you. You could've also pointed them out to me before going to other people too you know... although that takes more work than just fixing them.

"It's Dr Evil. I didn't go to evil medical school so you could call me Mr."-Dr. Evil

--Dr who1975 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welp... you;ve had ample time to respond and i don;t see anything. Thanks for your input anyway.--Dr who1975 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest person

As I understand you, the passport may be based on false statements, anyway thanks for pointing out. Is it the same case as another Azeri, Shirali Muslimov, who as I heard and read, died at 160? --Brand спойт 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Hi,

Your conduct with respect to me in the debate over Mr. Pata is completely unacceptable. Check my user page for my credentials, including an MA in history. Even if I had no credentials, your tone is totally inappropriate. Had I come across your comment directed at someone else, I would have given you a 12 hour-block for a civility violation. You had no reason to speak in that manner, and the only defects on display were your own. Please reconsider the manner in which you relate to others. Xoloz 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please place the comment in his talk page instead of his userpage, where it is likely (and was) reverted. Jaranda 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

Hey. By any chance could you add in a referece of his passing if it's true? I'm sure there would be something in the paper in a couple days, not sure if you have any proof or not now though. Based on your contributions I believe your claim, others may not though. --Wizardman 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello to All,

Granddaddy Moses Hardy passed away gently in his sleep this morning. On yesterday, he was very active and talkative, however this morning God quietly called him home. Thank you very much for including him in all your research and news reports. May God richly bless you all and your families. MOSES HARDY - January 6, 1893 - December 7, 2006.

Sincerely Rickey R. Davis → R Young {ł_talk} 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep an eye on the newsreels for somethign to put up. The WOP yahoo group confirms his death as well, sadly. --Wizardman 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's logical, my dear friend, since Robert Douglas Young is its moderator, hence. Extremely sexy 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hardy lives in rural Mississippi. The AP office is closed for the night. Nonetheless, the source is the grandson, which seems very reliable.→ R Young {ł_talk} 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bolden

This message is regarding your edits to Elizabeth Bolden. Can you please update the infobox?? Georgia guy 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did.→ R Young {ł_talk} 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seher Bulut

I see, but those facts about her aren't correct. She was born in 1883 Adilcevaz/Bitlis where she currently lives. She has 12 children one of the oldest is 91 years old and 250 grand-children. She is still alive as far as I know. Ajda 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Turkish or something. Her oldest son is 91 years old so her first child was born in 1915 . That's to say she was 32 years old. Yes, that's an older age for her. But it's not that difficult to guess why. The worst period of Turkish history was between 1880 - 1923. There were a lot battles occured and hundred thousands of men and even women died. Moreover, Armenians have killed millions of people where she currently lives. So it was not that easy having children under such difficult conditions. However, I don't care about if her name is at the list or not. Sincerely. Ajda 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning of specific demographic in opening paragraph

I want to start off by saying Emporis is a great site, and please keep up the good work. Regarding the introductory paragraph of Fort Lauderdale, I feel it is inappropriate to mention demographics. It is especially inappropriate to mention a single demographic. For example, to mention solely that there are a lot of white/black/asian/hispanic/jewish/christian/republican/democrat etc.. is a clear attempt to influence culture. It is true that an author of Rainbow Travel, a sub website of The Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Business Bureau, has the agenda of targeting a demographic to improve local business. I think that is great, but that agenda should not be placed on the opening paragraph of Fort Lauderdale's description. There is no demographic that dominates the city's culture and population, so that information should be left in the Demographic section along with the others. -rstepp

Philip Mayne

Please, do vote against the proposed removal of the article about him here. Extremely sexy 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Living?

Very unlikely.→ R Young {ł_talk} 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Harold Luhnow 1895-?

OK he died in 1978. Fixed.→ R Young {ł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ray Bennion 1896-?

Alan McGlashan 1899-?

The article says he died in 1996!→ R Young {ł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But only at the very end: confusing. Extremely sexy 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Can you fix the links in your signature? The talk and contributions go to Ryoung (talk · contribs · count), not Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · count)...and that particular Ryoung has no contributions. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks later and you still haven't fixed this. Please do so. Syrthiss 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mt. View

Sorry. A mcmurray 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Dalby Springs, Texas, while it had some kind of reference, in the body of the text is still nothing more than a blanket copy of the content from that reference, even if it is in quotes, you can't just copy info from another site and put it here, at least the way I understand it. If you want to keep it you should probably reword and cite it using proper inline citations, otherwise drop it on the talk page until someone else wants to.A mcmurray 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious distinction

Surely the "dubious distinction" is the fact that Emma Tillman now has the shortest tenure as the eldest person in the world, not the fact that the thirteen days during which Miyoto became the world's oldest person is somehow disputed. This is the reason why I made this edit to reflect this. Please let me know your opinion. Bobo . 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest people

You're right, though I would have considered the dubious distinction to be the record of "shortest tenure", rather than the irony of immediate death without the possibility, for example, of reference books such as Guinness being able to report this in anything but Wiki-esque statistics which alter immediately as they are reported rather than in a yearly almanac. It's pleasing to know the record still exists in spite of the impossibly short time that it would survive, and still be factually accurate, in a reference book, and that for the short time between the reports of the deaths of del Toro and Tillman, this was recorded on Misplaced Pages.

I've always felt proud that people such as yourself who record such things as happening immediately as they do, particularly from such wide sources, having to scour the globe for new title-holders, such as.. the Ecuadorian woman whose name I've forgotten who was discovered alive born in 1889, prior to her death.. this is something that makes the field of such a worldwide interest such an enjoyable activity to uphold.

I'm glad that the distinction of shortest tenure still exists, though I'd still only equate dubiety with dispute, say, if her birthdate was believed to have been reported incorrectly or similar, to the fact that the record was indeed, beyond any reasonable doubt, Tillman's for the shortest time. As such, I've rephrased that final paragraph to satisfy how I believe it should be phrased. Please view this and voice your opinion, and if necessary, feel free to change it back, and I promise not to alter it back if you do so. Thank you for messaging me back. Bobo . 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 said: Ok, I suppose the new wording is more clinically correct, though now blanched of any judgment (which is, to some, a good thing). But if I were writing a book, I'd use 'dubious' distinction for two reasons:

Obviously, if a titleholder held the title for only a week or two, their reign lacked in confidence or assurance. Also, the younger and shorter the title, the more subject to question it would be (it would be easier to find a 115-year-old that is real, than to find a real 123-year-old).

But one thing about Misplaced Pages is that it is the sum total of every contributor, not a personal work. Thus, I will go with your revision (although not your first version) as a compromise. The newer version is, ironically, less dubious in meaning than the old one.

Thank you very much. I can now understand your willingness to include dubiety as a factor in the eldest person statistics. I am fine with the first version being discarded, as I'm certainly more pleased with my second revision of the page.

As for the questionability of the shortness of each tenure the current title holder, I would certainly agree with your analysis of the difficulty in recording the new title holders and, if worst comes to worst, the heir(s) to the throne(s). Thank you for your input, as I think this will mean that we can leave the phrasing as is for the time being. Bobo . 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Living centenarians?

born 1897 - Sudhakar Chaturvedi
born 1901 - Sona Babai
born 1903 - Ramon A. Estella
born 1905 - Óscar del Rosario
born 1905 - Paco Zamora
born 1906 - John Wilkinson Taylor, Victor S. Johnson, Jr., Henry Evans Maude, Clarrie O'Shea, Horst von Möllendorff, Carmen Concha,
born 1907 - Salome Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Arthur Young (policeman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.181.75 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Witness Lee

In regards to the below article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Witness_Lee

I suggest a layer of protection from unregistered users. I thought the purpose of Misplaced Pages was to provide an informative, encyclopaedic entry about a subject. However, some Christian fundamentalist apologists see this as a way to conduct religious war instead. Notably, the continued attempted addition of:

On January 8, 2007, more than 60 evangelical scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations issued an unprecedented public appeal to the leadership of Living Stream and the "local churches" (available here), asking them to disavow and withdraw controversial statements made by Witness Lee on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man. is way off-base.

Reasons:

1. No news citation or other source. 2. Use of biased words such as 'unprecedented' 3. Witness Lee died in 1997 and has nothing to do with the current lawsuit 4. Any religious position can be seen as 'controversial' by those that don't believe it 5. Stacking the deck bias...most of the '60' are NOT NOTABLE and in fact this appears to be a coordinated effort, akin to politics. We could easily get a petition of '60 concerned scholars' who oppose the war in Iraq. Such a petition is not newsworthy unless covered by a major news source, which in that case would at the very least allow for an editing. Prior attempts to compromise by editing out words such as 'unprecedented' have been met with reverts and no compromise attempted. 6. Bad intent The purpose/goal seems to be to pressure the local churches/LSM to modify their personal beliefs to accord with said outside pressure. This is akin to the Inquisition, Salem Witchcraft Trials, or the burning at the stake of Christian protestants in the 1500's. The Catholic church was free to excommunicate Martin Luther, but to go further by burning people at the stake for being a member of a different faith is in fact one of the worst attacks on freedom in all of humanity. It seems that the battle for the mind is only challenged by the battle for earthly resources as to which is worse.

Thus, it appears that the Witness Lee article is under bad-faith attack from those who put their own personal biases ahead of the principles of being a Wikipedian...not surprising considering the edits are being done ANONYMOUSLY BY UNREGISTERED USERS. Similar controversies exist around the Local churches and Living Stream Ministry articles...controversies that have LESS to do with the local church/LSM than they do to those who prefer to preach "You're going to hell unless you're a member of our congregation." I don't see local church members telling fundamentalist Baptists what their beliefs are. To try to state what another group believes through the lens of apologism is simply unacceptable.→ R Young {ł_talk} 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I have added it to my watchlist(s) and will continue to monitor its progress. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122, it would be nice if you would provide some clue as to what your motivations are for repeatedly reverting my recent edits to the Witness Lee article. You have reverted my edits three times without providing any explanation, despite repeated requests to do so in my own edit summaries. IMO, the edits are obvious improvements in NPOV, as they remove opinionated words and unsourced speculative rationales for the actions of third-party people who would clearly disagree with the provided characterizations of their actions. —Wookipedian 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed al Wasimy

Born in 1875, and still living? => http://pl.wikipedia.org/Mohammed_al_Wasimy, http://newsfromrussia.com/society/2005/08/12/61237.html, http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/newsissues/081205/index.asp?page=AroundWorld4.

This goes in the 'space alien' category of believability.→ R Young {ł_talk} 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Marcus00.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marcus00.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —An gr 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruz Hernández

Thanks for creating the article Cruz Hernández in the first place. If you hadn't, I would have. If you revert it or edit it, please do not revert to your original version (of last May 2006), because in so doing, you remove citations and external links, and re-introduce too much skepticism (i.e. POV). If documentation was not sent to WBGR or The Gerontology Group or whatever, then improve or remove that sentence only (I didn't add that particular sentence, and can't vouch for its accuracy). Also, please, prove beyond doubt to every reader of Misplaced Pages your age and exact date of birth before proceeding (just kidding). 69.149.165.203 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one I have to say. Extremely sexy 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so stupid. Age 128 has never been proven, ever. It's like claiming to have found life on the Moon. Merely expecting someone to provide proof for the all-time record hardly constitutes being unreasonable. Writing slanted/biased stories to sell more papers at the expense of the truth? Well that's up to you to decide.→ R Young {ł_talk} 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta I-75 charter bus accident

I noticed you left a message in the discussion of the Atlanta I-75 Charter Bus Accident article. Zach Arend in fact died from injuries, but he died from the result of the bus accident (that was why he was injured - because of the bus accident). I changed it anyway. Personally, I believe the ones who passed away did so as a a result of the accident. Tell me what you think at the discussion. (unsigned comment)

It was just a semantic issue. To say '7 killed in the bus' would not be accurate. To say '7 died as a result of the bus accident' would be.→ R Young {ł_talk} 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hryhoriy Nestor

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1503676,69,item.html and http://svet.ihned.cz/c4-10030270-20496470-003100_d-za-mocnarstvi-se-na-ukrajine-zilo-nejlip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.183.72 (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that the Nestor camp have been given opportunity to submit documentation on his claim, but have not yet done so.→ R Young {ł_talk} 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to www.ami-tass.ru records were filled to Guinness World Records. But even without this - Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of Guinness Records, as those seems to be incorrect sometimes. --TAG 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your signature

Your signature, as you've modified it, points to User talk:RYoung rather than this page, and the pointer to your contributions is similarly incorrect. Please correct this immediately.

I am going to move the comments that have been incorrectly posted at User talk:RYoung, to this page, and am going to put a redirect in place that (hopefully) will prevent future comments from being posted to that page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Veracity

I don't appreciate your impugning my veracity. What possible reason do I have to make any of this up? Money? Glory?

Furthermore, I didn't erase anything. 00:46, 26 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEF Doughboy (talk • contribs)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour

You aren't really assuming good faith, now are you? I don't know nor do i care about the race of this person. I came across her when I was sorting {{Africa-bio-stub}}, not as a result of any personal attack. I'll have you know that I have pushed through dozens of Africa nation stubs and templates and spent hours hand sorting them, as well as writing dozens of new entries for african politicians, athletes and other notable places that should be included, for example, see Islam in Mozambique. I think that any article based on someone because of their age, possibly short of the "the oldest" person, should be deleted. If you nominated those people for Afd, I'd happily discuss in favor of deletion. --Thomas.macmillan 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After reading your personal attack on the Afd board, I just want to say something to your racist assumption that I am of English ancestry. My mother is 100% French ancestry. My father is of mixed Scottish, Irish and English ancestry with also a little bit of Native American. Misplaced Pages is not the place to work out your anger against supposed Anglo's. Personal attacks will stop or an administrator will be notified.--Thomas.macmillan 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize you actually were an AGEIST, not a RACIST. That you think an article you know nothing about should be deleted because of age, is simple AGEIST bias.→ R Young {ł_talk} 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David Allen Lambert

You can nominate the article for WP:AFD. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez (talk)

I "have an agenda?" I notice others have also noted you not assuming good faith. Interesting. --Beth C. 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Matt Sanchez article and the lack of balance:

My Salon article draws comparisons between myself and Rich Merritt and Jeff Gannon. I don't deny those similarities as I have since spoken to both men. Jeff Gannon used a military identity to portray himself as an escort and was avowed Republican. There are some striking similarities between us, but we are very different and have had very different career paths. My "I don't deny it" statement speaks to those similarities. Your statements or accusations are unfounded.

The article should also include how homosexuals have come out against me since I stated VERY CLEARLY that I am not gay, and denounced pornography in general. Bluemarine 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility

Please do not defend yourself by pointing to what you consider to be failings of others. If other editors, like me, believe that some of your comments are inappropriate, please examine your own comments and see if you can (a) see the problem and (b) commit to fixing that.

Consider the following:

Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist. WP:CIVIL and other guidelines here say Comment on content, not contributors. I personally don't care what editors are, I care what they do. I strongly advise you to change your attitude on this; you're heading toward being blocked.

Porn is prostitution. No, it's not. That's why there are two different words, for two different things. Insisting that they are the same is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Mr. Sanchez claims that 'porn is prostitution'. Even if he did, it doesn't matter, unless that's a direct quote from an article, and then it's only possibly relevant as far as whether it's useful to be in the biography here at Misplaced Pages.

Regarding I have so far given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you would be a partial administrator of the 'Matt Sanchez' debate, I'm not an administrator (there are roughly a thousand editors who are), and the correct word is impartial, not partial. And I have no commitment whatsoever to refereeing this argument; like you, I have a real life and limited time for Misplaced Pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I had cited references of uncivility and you had 'excuses' such as 'I have a real life,' I'd say it is you who were being 'partial.' I rest my case.→ R Young {ł_talk} 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second request

I am AGAIN requesting that you fix your signature (see section above). If you have some reason why you believe what you're doing is acceptable, please inform me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(from my talk page, using this header because (1) it's the bottom of your talk and (2) it's the same subject)

Ryoung, currently your signature has the following structure:

] {]ł]}

So what that means is that anytime someone clicks on your yak in your sig to talk to you, they are instead being sent to User talk:RYoung... To fix it, click on "my preferences" at the top of any page when you are logged in, and on the first panel in the signature box replace the above with this:

] {]ł]}

Does that help? Syrthiss 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Thanks for the clear, easy-to-follow instructions instead of the usual 'for the last time' approach some people take. Let me know if it is not working, but I think it is fixed. R Young {ł_talk} 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

Hi RYoung, I noticed that you added George Francis to the list of the ten oldest currently living men on the oldest people page. Do you have any outside link or source for George Francis? I can't find one anywhere. Regards, Rrsmac 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/6872 R Young {ł_talk} 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid AfD to be dealth with immediately

Please, do vote as well over here. Extremely sexy 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Bart

The last words of your message sound like a threat. I'm sure that wasn't your intention and that Bart's behaviour has just irritated you into an indiscreet comment. I invite you to amend your post as quickly as possible. Thanks. --Dweller 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point on two levels. I know he's behaved badly. No need for you to do similarly. Furthermore, you look bad for appearing to threaten. Whether you can or will carry out a threat is irrelevant. Why lower yourself to someone else's level? --Dweller 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not Winston Churchill and Bart editing other peoples' talk page comments isn't Hitlereque behaviour. Calm down. Bart is out of line and will be admonished (again) but your comment will land you in hot water should he make a complaint. If you want to ignore my well-meant advice, that's your prerogative. --Dweller 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One, I do not edit what other people write on comment pages. Two, I do not use foul or profane language or call people names. Three, I do not believe suggesting that there is consequences for breaking rules is out of line or inappropriate behavior. If it is, then there is no point in having rules and my fair response would then be to re-write...i.e. 'vandalize'...what Bart writes. I do not see that as a positive option. Hence, I took the high road (proper language and procedure) instead of responding with in-kind vandalism. But this just proves my point that holding one to a 'higher' standard really allows others to get away with what they shouldn't.

Bart is "addicted" to having his own way, even to the point of re-writing the writing of others. While this often involves minor issues, it often becomes difficult to undo what he writes because by then, a third party has added some new material elsewhere. Also, the sheer volume and intensity (over a period of several years) is enough to at least expect a 'warning' (a warning is not a threat: warnings take the tack of proper procedures, threats do not). It is definitely counterproductive for me to go back and undo what he writes at the expense of undoing the work of a third-party contributor as well. Nonetheless, the result is that what I did NOT write is left to appear as if I had written it. That is the entire point. I stand by what I wrote (including the message to Bart using the word "consequences"). Saying "I'm going to kill person X" is a threat. Saying "continued violation of the rules will result in consequences" is NOT a threat. R Young {ł_talk} 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oldest Estonian

You didn't find the verify about the Estonian Oldest Person Maria Tomson and deleted it, - this source is in Estonian , (1966 was the Soviet time in Estonia).Kask 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper report is not documentation.R Young {ł_talk} 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle names.

You told me the middle names of the oldest person in the world in Oldest People was unnecessary (for Elizabeth Alice Kensley), so that contradicts people like Josefa Salas Mateo and John Mosely Turner. And we know Anna Eliza Williams is from Wales. Neal 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use "Moseley". I use the other two because that's what was written in the Guinness Book.R Young {ł_talk} 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

I had to sift through your compaints to[REDACTED] management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.

I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized.--Dr who1975 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"It's Dr Evil. I didn't go to evil medical school so you could call me Mr."-Dr. Evil

--Dr who1975 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welp... you;ve had ample time to respond and i don;t see anything. Thanks for your input anyway.--Dr who1975 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest person

Civility Warning

Hi,

Please place the comment in his talk page instead of his userpage, where it is likely (and was) reverted. Jaranda 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

Hello to All,

Sincerely Rickey R. Davis → R Young {ł_talk} 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep an eye on the newsreels for somethign to put up. The WOP yahoo group confirms his death as well, sadly. --Wizardman 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's logical, my dear friend, since Robert Douglas Young is its moderator, hence. Extremely sexy 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hardy lives in rural Mississippi. The AP office is closed for the night. Nonetheless, the source is the grandson, which seems very reliable.→ R Young {ł_talk} 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bolden

This message is regarding your edits to Elizabeth Bolden. Can you please update the infobox?? Georgia guy 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did.→ R Young {ł_talk} 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seher Bulut

Mentioning of specific demographic in opening paragraph

Philip Mayne

Please, do vote against the proposed removal of the article about him here. Extremely sexy 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Living?

Very unlikely.→ R Young {ł_talk} 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Harold Luhnow 1895-?

OK he died in 1978. Fixed.→ R Young {ł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ray Bennion 1896-?

Alan McGlashan 1899-?

The article says he died in 1996!→ R Young {ł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But only at the very end: confusing. Extremely sexy 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Almost two weeks later and you still haven't fixed this. Please do so. Syrthiss 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mt. View

Sorry. A mcmurray 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious distinction

Oldest people

Living centenarians?

born 1897 - Sudhakar Chaturvedi
born 1901 - Sona Babai
born 1903 - Ramon A. Estella
born 1905 - Óscar del Rosario
born 1905 - Paco Zamora
born 1906 - John Wilkinson Taylor, Victor S. Johnson, Jr., Henry Evans Maude, Clarrie O'Shea, Horst von Möllendorff, Carmen Concha,
born 1907 - Salome Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Arthur Young (policeman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.181.75 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Witness Lee

In regards to the below article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Witness_Lee

Reasons:

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I have added it to my watchlist(s) and will continue to monitor its progress. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed al Wasimy

This goes in the 'space alien' category of believability.→ R Young {ł_talk} 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Marcus00.jpg

Cruz Hernández

That's a good one I have to say. Extremely sexy 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta I-75 charter bus accident

It was just a semantic issue. To say '7 killed in the bus' would not be accurate. To say '7 died as a result of the bus accident' would be.→ R Young {ł_talk} 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hryhoriy Nestor

Please note that the Nestor camp have been given opportunity to submit documentation on his claim, but have not yet done so.→ R Young {ł_talk} 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your signature

Your signature, as you've modified it, points to User talk:RYoung rather than this page, and the pointer to your contributions is similarly incorrect. Please correct this immediately.

Veracity

I don't appreciate your impugning my veracity. What possible reason do I have to make any of this up? Money? Glory?

Furthermore, I didn't erase anything. 00:46, 26 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEF Doughboy (talk • contribs)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour

After reading your personal attack on the Afd board, I just want to say something to your racist assumption that I am of English ancestry. My mother is 100% French ancestry. My father is of mixed Scottish, Irish and English ancestry with also a little bit of Native American. Misplaced Pages is not the place to work out your anger against supposed Anglo's. Personal attacks will stop or an administrator will be notified.--Thomas.macmillan 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

David Allen Lambert

You can nominate the article for WP:AFD. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez (talk)

I "have an agenda?" I notice others have also noted you not assuming good faith. Interesting. --Beth C. 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Matt Sanchez article and the lack of balance:

The article should also include how homosexuals have come out against me since I stated VERY CLEARLY that I am not gay, and denounced pornography in general. Bluemarine 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility

Consider the following:

Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist. WP:CIVIL and other guidelines here say Comment on content, not contributors. I personally don't care what editors are, I care what they do. I strongly advise you to change your attitude on this; you're heading toward being blocked.

Porn is prostitution. No, it's not. That's why there are two different words, for two different things. Insisting that they are the same is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Mr. Sanchez claims that 'porn is prostitution'. Even if he did, it doesn't matter, unless that's a direct quote from an article, and then it's only possibly relevant as far as whether it's useful to be in the biography here at Misplaced Pages.

Second request

(from my talk page, using this header because (1) it's the bottom of your talk and (2) it's the same subject)

Ryoung, currently your signature has the following structure:

] {]ł]}

Does that help? Syrthiss 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/6872 R Young {ł_talk} 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid AfD to be dealth with immediately

Please, do vote as well over here. Extremely sexy 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Bart

The Oldest Estonian

You didn't find the verify about the Estonian Oldest Person Maria Tomson and deleted it, - this source is in Estonian , (1966 was the Soviet time in Estonia).Kask 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper report is not documentation.R Young {ł_talk} 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle names.

I don't use "Moseley". I use the other two because that's what was written in the Guinness Book.R Young {ł_talk} 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page

Contrary to my habit, I'm replying on your talk page instead of mine, that's because I'm about to erase your comments from my talk page. I don't do that often (to be more precise, to my recollection I haven't removed anything from my talk page that wasn't vandalism), but this is important to me. Have you read WP:BLP? If so, you'll know that there are strict rules for biographies of living persons. "We have a serious responsability to get things right", to quote Jimbo on that. But "getting things right" is not getting the truth out there, as paradoxal as that might sound. It is about documenting what's already stated in reliable sources. Nothing more. Misplaced Pages is not the place for investigative journalism. It's not the place for making right what's wrong in a society by outing people for whatever 'everybody knows' that they have done. I'm asking you not to repeat your claims in that article, on my talk page or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. They were removed from the article for a reason, and that was that we've agreed not to have unsubstantiated claims like these in our articles. To be very honest, I don't care about this story. I have no opinion on what he did or didn't do. I'm not an American, and I hadn't heard about this before. I do not have any links to the person involved. So this is not about me wanting to sweep stuff under the rug, like you stated in your comment. It's about making sure our biographies are up to a certain standard, whoever the subject is. Kind regards, --Joanne B 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can have no 'kind regards' for someone who presumes themselves superior or right, while prejudging others, failing to read what was written, and then engaging in censorship and stigmatization by suggesting that a certain discussion is 'beneath' oneself. As it's been said: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.R Young {ł_talk} 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Joanne,

I find your response quite disturbing, disrespectful, lacking in insight, and lacking in analyis. Basically you didn't even read what I wrote, instead 'presuming' you were right in the first place, and that you didn't want to 'touch' this with a ten-foot pole.

I did read it, and did not presume anything. -Joanne B 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, my returning back at you what you said to me may not do much good, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually READ what I write before drawing any firm conclusions (i.e. don't prejudge):

Regarding your message on my talk page Contrary to my habit, I'm replying on your talk page instead of mine, that's because I'm about to erase your comments from my talk page.

Sounds like a Biblical quote. Who made YOU GOD?R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No one did. I'm allowed to do that to my talk page, and I just wanted to explain why. --Joanne B 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't do that often (to be more precise, to my recollection I haven't removed anything from my talk page that wasn't vandalism), but this is important to me.

Rather, like someone who thinks if you don't see an animal killed, it shouldn't bother you that you are eating a hamburger. So, this is important to you. Did it ever occur to you that this is important to ME? Quit being so self-centered, and consider all points of view first.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. And as for "Quit being so self centered" - you're judging quite a lot from just one paragraph. Are you sure you're not overreacting here?

Have you read WP:BLP?

Yes I have, although WP: AUTO states that persons aren't supposed to edit their own autobiographies, yet Matt Sanchez gleefully admits to violating that rule. Also, the facts are that even in a case where someone was famous for something else, such as Mark Foley or Bill Clinton, controversies are included when they become public debate. For persons like Matt Sanchez and Monica Lewinsky, no one would know who they were if not for the debate. Therefore, what they did or at least are alleged to have done (to be charitable) are central to their articles. In both cases, there is quite a bit of evidence to prove the allegations, and in both cases admissions of guilt were made. In fact, Mr. Sanchez has admitted more than once to the charges. He only changed his story when he found out the military was investigating for possible expulsion.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If so, you'll know that there are strict rules for biographies of living persons. "We have a serious responsability

responsibility?R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

English is my second language. I make mistakes. But yes, responsibility. --Joanne B 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

to get things right", to quote Jimbo on that. But "getting things right" is not getting the truth out there, as paradoxal as that might sound. It is about documenting what's already stated in reliable sources. Nothing more.

So Alan Colmes is not a reliable source? The US Marine Corps is not a reliable source? The FACTS of the matter are, Matt Sanchez tried very hard to insert himself into the political-cultural wars. He is not a 'private' citizen. He is someone who also appears in 40+ gay-oriented porno films (i.e. PUBLIC) and advertised himself publicly as a male escort, then admitted on Hannity and Colmes to such.

Misplaced Pages is not the place for investigative journalism.

The investigative journalism was done elsewhere, on web blogs. Not on Misplaced Pages. However, Misplaced Pages is the #1 place that people turn to to get the reliable facts, and its our duty as Wikipedians to present those FACTS when relevant.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the place for making right what's wrong in a society by outing people for whatever 'everybody knows' that they have done.

I agree that 'outing' is a controversial issue, but the facts are that there are millions of persons who engage in homosexual activities every day who are not 'outed.' Outing only tends to occur when one crosses the line: i.e. Mark Foley soliciting underage children. For many, Sanchez crossed the line when he made disparaging remarks about gay people, while he himeself was engaging in the same activities (for pay or for pleasure is a second issue; perhaps THAT is irrelevant...). Let's face it, Don Imus was subject to increased scrutiny as a result of what he said. The same can be said for Mr. Sanchez.

Ultimately, 'right' or 'wrong' is subjective; what happened is objective. Misplaced Pages is not the place for persons like you to self-censor what others write, for fear of people finding out the truth. In truth, we don't see a lot of people who serve as male escorts 'outed'...but we do see a unique instance here where Matt Sanchez's situation intersects with many controversial issues, including 'gays in the military' (don't ask, don't tell).R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to repeat your claims in that article,

The truth will be repeated, whether you like it or not. I don't have time right now so I won't bother with it today, but it will return in one form or another.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind, as long as it has references to reliable sources. --Joanne B 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

on my talk page

If you can't handle the truth, then you can gladly withdraw from the discussion. But not with the presumptive attitude that you are 'right' or 'superior' with you not even knowing what this case is about. At its core, this case is really about discrimination and homophobia. And though you have the right to maintain those biases privately, you don't have the right to maintain such biases publicly, and then impose them on everyone else.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can handle the truth. At the time I wrote this, the article was filled with allegations with fact tags all over them. Removing them is the first thing to do for BLP's, repeating them on talk pages is (in my view) just as bad. I do not have any biases regarding this issue, stop making this about that. It was about a lack of sources. --Joanne B 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. They were removed from the article for a reason,

They were removed because there is a concerted campaign by Mr. Sanchez to have this swept under the rug. In fact, this has been going on for almost two months now, with a back-and-forth. To think you can simply insert yourself into the middle, with little or no background knowledge of what has gone on before, is the height of arrogance. The FACTS of the matter include that that Mr. Sanchez's ILLEGAL activities have been documented with both IP addresses, phone numbers, web logs, etc. and that all these investigations were done OFF WIKIPEDIA. What was reported on Misplaced Pages merely quoted sources elsewhere.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what was reported on Misplaced Pages did not quote any reliable sources when I reverted you, for a lot of the claims that were in the article. --Joanne B 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

and that was that we've agreed not to have unsubstantiated claims like these in our articles.

Since the claims were substantiated, your words ring hollow. Also, it is clear there is no agreement, and to claim there is is fallacious. There is enough evidence to convict Mr. Sanchez. At the very least, let's wait until the military concludes its investigation before determining that the charges were 'unsubstantiated.'R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be very honest, I don't care about this story.

Then leave.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what he did or didn't do.

This is more than about opinion; it's about hypocrisy. I personally don't think what he did was that bad. However, by attempting to lie about it he actually increases the stigmatization...sort of like Roy Cohn. During the RED SCARE, Joseph McCarthy would accuse people of being "commie pinkos." That Mr. Cohn supported such comments while himself privately engaging in homosexual sex makes him a HYPOCRITE and makes his private life publicly relevant, because what he did publicly affected the lives of millions. I couldn't care less that someone advertises their services in a local gay magazine. Except that Mr Sanchez then turns around, calls gay people 'jihadists' and other insults, then denies what he previously admitted to more than once. The need to document the truth is due to Mr. Sanchez's efforts to commit malfeasance. He is also under investigation for embezzling over $12,000. A pattern of deception and lies.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an American, and I hadn't heard about this before. I do not have any links to the person involved.

I have no links to Mr. Sanchez, so I'm a third party. Mr. Sanchez is the one violating the rules by editing an article about himself.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is not about me wanting to sweep stuff under the rug, like you stated in your comment. It's about making sure our biographies are up to a certain standard, whoever the subject is. Kind regards, --JoanneB 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite one's ideals, Misplaced Pages is a 'metadata' collection of information, and standards tend to vary widely. Surely there are quite a bit of articles out there that you would find offensive. Need I point them out to you?

The real issues here are ones of hypocrisy, politicism, and distortion of the facts. Mr. Sanchez has attempted to turn his own bio page into political propaganda. While it may be argued that those against him are doing the same, was it not Mr. Sanchez that started it? In so doing, he becomes a public figure.

The bottom line: everything that was added to Misplaced Pages was investigated and documented elsewhere, and was relevant to the discussion. Removal of said information is .R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070309/

First of all, your discussion style makes it very hard to follow and if possible, even harder to reply to. Second, I had not expected such hostility. Naive, perhaps. Anyway. The way I see it: you reverted to a version loaded with {{fact}} tages. That simply doesn't work. If it has been decently sourced, I'm fine with it. The version you reverted to, wasn't. Period. As you can see, I've removed one bit of information now, as that was taken from a weblog, which is not a reliable source. --Joanne B 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done some indenting, as I lost track of who wrote what. I (sincerely) hope you don't mind. As a closing comment: the content of this dispute is not what bothered me, at all. If the article had said committed any other crime, I would have done the same. Don't make this (my edit, not this issue) about hypocrisy: it's not. I was not being hypocritical, I was following the guidelines in WP:BLP. --Joanne B 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll write you a report. Due next month.

Cheers RobertR Young {ł_talk} 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Could, you, please, answer this question over here, Robert? Extremely sexy 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I replied here: -AMK152 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Camille Loiseau.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.--Strangerer (Talk) 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian Super Centenarians

Hi, I was doing some research on Russian WWI veterans when I came across some articles on elderly Russians: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.pravda.ru/society/family/life/04-04-2007/218649-dolgoletie-0&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D110%2B%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en%26sa%3DG http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2007/04/06_a_1555004.shtml&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D111%2B%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en%26sa%3DG

You may know about them already but I thought I'd draw attention for you.

Regarding WW1, I have to say that Russian news sites are very good at translating syndicated news into Russian - all the recent veteran deaths are reported, but there are no annotations for Russian veterans, in fact WW1 is seldom mention at all in the face of the WW2 which they are very proud of. RichyBoy 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

However I was also thinking that if there are a couple of recently reported Russian females of that age then there is a possibility of some Russian males of around the same age and thus potentially some veterans. RichyBoy 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mother Jones

I am puzzled why you removed:

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

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

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

Raymond Cambefort

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

Matt Sanchez

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

Oldest people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would I go about finding out..?

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

Louis Lagaurnadie

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

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

Signature Change

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

Melchizedek priesthood

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

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

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

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

Usage of the comma

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

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

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

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

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

British WWI veteran is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

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

DHLister,

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

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

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

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

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

Flag templates

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

Possible new English case

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

Question

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

Vandal block

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

Is the Sears Tower article another POV?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Someformofhuman 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

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

Someformofhuman 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your AFD

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

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

Tennis Grand Slam editing

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

Usage of "Suburb"

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

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

Dispute Resolution, please

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

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

Comments on Ruby Muhammad talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find the below comment to be particularly disturbing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiregional hypothesis

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

AfD nomination of Most ancient common ancestor

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

Please stop your 'original research'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hsu,

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

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

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

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

If you wish,

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

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

Wikicode hints

Here's some hints when writing in Misplaced Pages:

Two lines on top of each other become one line.

Use a : at the beginning of a line to indent

Use two or more :'s to indent deeper.

Use a * to make a bullet

Use :* to indent a bullet.

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

Use a space to put your text in a box.

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2: Quoting blocks of text

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

President Lincoln said
Four-score and seven years ago...
or:
President Lincoln said

“

Four-score and seven years ago...

”

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

Commas in Template:Age in years and days

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

Edit summaries

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

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

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

Preview

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

Mary Ramsey Wood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a pleasant afternoon.

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

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

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

John Campbell Ross

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

surviving WWI veterans

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

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

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of World War I Er rab ee 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mary Ramsey Wood

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

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

AfD nomination of Species integration

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

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

Suggestions on how to avoid AfDs in the future

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

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

Talk Page Reply

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

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

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

Mary Ramsey Wood

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

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

www.grg.org (table E)

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

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

Explanation Required

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

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

Tsuneyo Toyonaga

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

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

Good prediction!

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

Unsourced edit

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

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

John Babcock

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

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

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

Barnum

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

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

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

Old people

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

Gladys Swetland

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

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

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Camille_Loiseau.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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

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

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

"110 years"

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

Re:Oldest people formatting

See my reply here. -AMK152 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith Accusation

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

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

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

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

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

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

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

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

Good riddance!

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

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

You have crossed the line.

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

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

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

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

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

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do we go from here:

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

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

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

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

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

Importance on WikiProject's scope

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

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

Ludwika Kosztyła - 110 years old - oldest polish people

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

Final Attempt At Polite Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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 , note that the sources are far less reliable than those for Ellenbogen, that the advertising content is much higher, and tell me again that Misplaced Pages'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)