User talk:Ryoung122

Redundancy

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

DR

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

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

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

church ads

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

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine

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

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

Timothy J Boham

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

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

Acceptability of World's Oldest Forum as RS

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

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

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

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

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

Mahavatar Babaji

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

Main Page error reports

See Talk:Main Page

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:

• Steven A. Garan
• Michael Fossel
• Denham Harman
• Robin Holliday
• Cynthia Kenyon
• Thomas Okarma
• Jay Olshansky
• Raymond Pearl
• Suresh Rattan

Which ones are biomedical gerontologists?

Healthwise 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically:

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

Shameful Is As Shameful Does

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Jolley

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

How to make your signature colorful

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

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

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

It looks like this: Ryoung122

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

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

Are you familiar with this cloning technique?

Whole-cell intracytoplasmic microinjection

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

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

Healthwise 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Surprising

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

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

Archiving your talk page

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

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

Please don't remove day-counters

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

Thank you for correcting me when I did something stupid

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

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

DYK

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

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

Last_veterans_of_World_War_I

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

On Lamebull

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

Greetings,

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

Disrespect

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

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

Master sock-puppeteer

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

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

DEATHS - Justin Tuveri

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

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

Longevity claims

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

Reformatting of comment

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

Re: List of Wikipedians by edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contacting me

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

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

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

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

Bernard Delaire veteran WW1

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

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

Matt Sanchez

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

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

Canadian Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living people/women, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPA

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

Regarding the below statement:

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

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

Ryoung122 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion of Sukesaburo Nakanishi

Yeah, I saw that it was slightly different that the rest. But some of the keep voters argued to delete all of them, even after taking the differences into consideration, so I think the consensus was pretty clear. I won't argue, though, that lumping a bunch of articles into a single deletion nomination is always "fair" to each one individually, so if you feel it's proper, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- RG² 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian trackers

Hi Ryoung

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

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

Maria de Jesus

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

Edit Count War II

As usual, started by the anti-list forces!

User Duk,

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

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

Now, it could be said that since:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, this problem will continue until two things occur:

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

Or:

B. Get a decree from some top person

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

That makes a decision.

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

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

Canvassing

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

Category: Supercentenarian Trackers

BHG,

In regards to the below message:

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

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

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

 Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency 

Friendly notice Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open

↕  ↕  ↕  ↕ 

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

Please note that:

A. I did not tell people how to vote

B. The messages posted were public, not private

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of a hyphen returns even more:

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 07:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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