Scotland_constituency#Members_of_Parliament_returned_for_Scotland contains a lot of wrong links. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you keep posting notability tags in articles about place names in Tolkien's works? Are Valinor, Fangorn, Beleriand, etc. not notable to you? Although this is material out of one of the most-read works of literature? I really suspect you are trying to abuse your administrative powers here. Instead of trying to remove said articles, you should try to expand them. Please stop your private rampage. Cush 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You are with out a doubt the rudest person I have encountered in two years on wikipedia. You're rudely telling them to take a flying leap and read the guidelines, which they have already said he believes are too extensive. You interpet them to unbreakable commandments, and have taken a puritan stance on it all. I've noticed most of them you end up attaking things you disagree with, as if you're the surpreme authority here. I, and many tens of thousands of others, would be extremely upset if Wikipedia was not as broard and extensive as it is. If I could not look up extensive amounts of side information on interesting fictional works. I can't help but say, "What is your obsession with following arbitrary guidelines to the t and the i." So much that you are attacking perfectly acceptable articles and offending the large user bases who have worked on them, and the many people who look them up. Would you like to turn wikipedia into a boring, standard encyclopedia. One of things I like about this site is that I can look fiction and find a great of aside information wirtten by knowledgeable readers, helpful information too, nad I'm sure it's not just me, but many other people using this site that do the same. You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone. Again, What is your obssession with the wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia is an online site for people to read up on things, than Tolkien fans who are trying to look into his works, have a right to have access to articles on the known information on the major geographical places. Stargate SG-1 has about fifty pages worth of articles on the various fictional alien races and planets and technology, are you opposed to that. I believe you are outside your zone her, as your main projects seem to be hundreds and hundreds of works on British Legislators. It seems that everywhere I run into a controversial article deletion tag, you are involved in it, and are fighting with the writers of the article, and very uncivily at that, in fact I have never read a polite and civil argument posted by you. I would say you're on a power trip as I see your name constantly on deletion pages, most of the time for articles that have otherwise good content and relevance. I would say that you and your group of supporters need to quit trying to delete every article you dislike or don't think falls perfectly under the guidelines, you don't have be a puritan. And, the absolute worst part of it is that most of the things I've seen you try to delete are outside of your said areas of knowledge and interest, giving you no right to pass judgement on them, on what other people with different interests are working on. On a last note, you say that a topic has to have a particular amount of notability? Well these do. I interpet that to say I, can't and shouldn't, write an article on myself. I am not notable, Valinor is. You have no right to make that judgement based on the fact you think it's silly. That fact is that the enormousness of that piece of literature and the amount of fans of might look up information on it, make it notable, not what you think about it. There is plenty of room on wikipedia, for your interests, mine, theirs, their is room for all semi-notable well written, and informative information. That is the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information. The site is not running out of memory, so therefore you shouldn't be going out of your way to delete perfectly good articles based on your own puritanically dictatoral view of the notability guideline, it's a power trip, 100% a power trip. I'm sorry for the way the formating came up, it really got away from me. I would just like to add, again, that I have read through most of the Tolkien pages, all of them are perfectly good, though a few need more information and their are people working on that.-- Robert Waalk 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the below message left on my user page:
[edit] 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)
Dear BHG,
{a screenful of irrelevancies deleted by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)}
I am here on Wikipedia to 'give back' to the community and educate the public. I am not here to cause problems for long-time Wikipedians. However, it is true that what I do may not be well-known to the general public. Yet when you hear of the world's oldest person passing away, everyone hears of that.
Sincerely, Robert Young World's Leading Expert Ryoung122 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And, if by the off chance I don't know who it is, if you have the documents I'll add her to the worldwide database. How about that? Ryoung122 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The current Irish record is 111 years 327 days set by Katherine Plunket (in 1932!), the oldest record in the book. Other public Irish cases to 110+ include Florence Lytle, Elizabeth Yensen, and Catherine Furey...a very short list. We know that Irene Richardson (born May 29 1896) made it to 109 but no updates since. The lists we have include over 1,000 cases worldwide.
Please note that my original creation of an 'autobiography' was partly factored by the creation of the article David Allen Lambert by himself...an autobiography. He was involved with ONE supercentenarian case. ONE. I had over 1,000. He deemed himself notable with a little self-publicity coverage. Seem fair? Not quite. Also, some have been asserting that persons such as Mary Ramsey Wood were '120' when the evidence pointed to 97. When the question became 'on what authority' do you say she was 97, it made sense to create my own article and provide a link to it from the appropriate article...because, in actuality, I am the authority.
Note I didn't include in my autobiography: parents, high school, anything like that. Only material relevant to answering the question: why should a reader of Wikipedia trust me when I say that someone like Micajah Weiss isn't really 114 years old? As a child, I was 'fooled' by several cases that turned out to be false, such as Pierre Joubert (claimed to be 113, turned out to be 82). It became my mission to educate the world as to how long people really live. Wikipedia is a part of that education mission.
Note that I was the major case contributor and co-organizer for this book, which also was made into a featured exhibit at the United Nations:
http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html
This book included a foreword by U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. That was in 2002...before Guinness hired me.
So, already in 2002, persons like Jerry Friedman searched for an expert and they found me. He lived in Connecticut...I lived in Atlanta. Hardly what I'd call a 'local' story.
Yet even earlier, in 2000 I had gotten an invitation to Germany to attend the FIRST annual conference on supercentenarians. In 2004 I was called to help form the 'Supercentenarian Research Foundation.' Thus I have been not just an 'editor' or 'listmaker' but involved in setting up the very apparati that are now involved in this emerging field.
When the Wall Street Journal wanted an expert, who did they turn to?
Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal"We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, .... Club Has One Requirement: 110 Birthday Candles," The Wall Street Journal, pp. ... www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Similarly, I have also been cited/quoted/mentioned in the NY Times, Japan Times, BBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. I actually worked on a project for an NBC news segment in 2005 with Max Gomez.
OK, if you don't think that makes one notable, then fine. But I expect to see junk like Keeley Dorsey done away with. Two touchdowns and oops, died at 19 from the heat while in practice, does not constitute 'notability.'
By the way, I have already developed the 'XX theory' of gender differentials in supercentenarians. It's not due out, however. I agree on the 'professor' front I'm 'not yet notable.' That will probably change in the future. But in the meantime it seems that I should be counted as 'notable' based on the fact that, when the media want a person to turn to regarding supercentenarians, they often turn to me. That's over 1,000 newspapers on all six continents...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia. This is not a little 'hometown' citation. For example, ABC news:
ABC News: 2nd Oldest Man in World Dies at Age 113Moses Hardy, Last Known Black WWI Vet, Dies at 113; Listed As 2nd Oldest Man in the ... Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2711726 - Similar pages
ABC News: Oldest Person Dies at 114 in ConnecticutEmma Faust Tillman, World's Oldest Known Person, Dies at 114 ... Her four-day reign was the shortest on record, said Robert Young, senior consultant for ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2831097 - Similar pages
Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:
http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm
have cited me (even though I'm not linked to it and not deriving any money from it).
Thus, there is no 'fear' that mine would be the 'first' of many additional articles. Actually, mine wasn't the first... E Ross Eckler Jr, who worked for Guinness in the 1950's, was the first article. Thus I see myself as continuing in that tradition. I did not decide to be notable...others decided for me. Every group I was with, invited me to 'help' them get started on the subject. I have done more than 'create' lists. While true that Louis Epstein was also a pioneer, I have already invented several concepts including organizing data by 'oldest by year of birth' and invented ideas such as the 'age bubble effect,' 'XX theory of gender-related lifespan differential' (why women live longer). In 2002, I overturned the long-standing notion that 'life expectancy increase in the West began about 1750', instead demonstrating it went back to the 1200's. That's notable...to researchers. Maybe not to those concerned about cartoons on TV.
So, I propose this: I will be 'polite' and 'civil'. In exchange I request that you not delete material that, even if you don't consider relevant, I do, and consider that some statements made, even if not intentional, may have been incorrect. For example, that article you said didn't mention me, actually mentioned me seven times. It is only fair for whomever may vote to delete me would do so based on the actual facts, not miscontrued information. Is that too much to ask?
Sincerely, Robert Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 November 2007
Dear BHG,
In response to this message:
Addituonally, it now turns out that you have been blatantly canvassing this AfD ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), which I will take to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that some of those persons either voted 'no' or hadn't voted at all, which hardly argues for one-sided canvassing. I do believe in a 'jury of peers' and again, I have a few main issues which I believe were unfair in this process from the beginning:
1. The deletion or collapse of my arguments meant that, '4000 words' or no, few if any probably actually read them. Wikipedia is 'not paper' so the length of a response should not matter, as long as it is pertinent.
2. When it appears that editors with a personal vendetta or bias don't recuse themselves from the 'non-vote', it can hardly be called a 'fair' process. That includes AboutMovies, KittyBrewster, PeteForsyth, and ShotInfo, as well as yourself, considering it is traditional for the 'nominator' not to actually vote and that your nomination came after a few controntational issues regarding the 'supercentenarian trackers' debate. For example, ShotInfo decided to 'vote' against me after I removed something from the David Horrobin article. That is evidence of 'bad faith'. So, I cannot assume 'good faith' for those who demonstrated 'bad faith.'
3. The posting of incorrect information, which was never corrected.
Please send me a link to the ANI if you do decide to go ahead with this. Ryoung122 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a misuse of the category system and I'm wondering if some of this mess needs to be cleaned up. Things like categories for articles that don't exist strike me as a bad road to go down. Otto4711 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Ontario_municipal_election_results_templates leads to alll sorts of blue links that should be de-linked. Is there a way to do a mass tagging? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion related to canvassing by Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs), who posted his reply both here and on his talk page. I have replied at User talk:Ryoung122#Category:_Supercentenarian_Trackers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this ip he vandalised Wall Street article last night and if you look at his talk page you will see that he has been warned repeatedly it seems it is an account just for vandalisim thanks. BigDunc 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've noticed you doing some more tagging, and I'd like to thank you for that. One question - is there an easy way to generate a list or category of the articles you've tagged? I'd like to be able to review such a list, as some will be easy to deal with straightaway (such as On Fairy-Stories). I can't work out any easy way, other than following your contribs logs, or using Template:ME-importance, or a variant of that. What do you think? Carcharoth 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you have time to check this. Wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you meant by the tag. BTW, I left an earlier response at the same time as a previous one (in the section started by Otto), so just making sure you didn't miss that. Carcharoth 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Project-specific_templates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Rose Dugdale finished, after much hard work.... One Night In Hackney 303 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
is being vandalised. Please would you fix and semi-protect. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As our resident expert on Irish administrative miscellany, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo? This looks to be headed for a delete vote under highly dubious circumstances (the place patently does exist) - but do you think Wikipedia's "all named geographic locations should have their own article" policy breaks down at the townland level?
Incidentally you're now in the top 10 of all time by edit count... — iride scent 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response here. CJCurrie 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up Category:Urban_legends and I can't figure out why Talk:Killer badger is listed or how to remove it. 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I have rewritten TTI Telecom, originally a spam article, and included references since you nominated it for deletion. I invite you to take another look at the article and its AfD before the AfD closes shortly. I am not affiliated with the company; in fact, I PROD'd their 4 other articles -- see Talk:List of network management systems.
Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me an obvious MoS, but please could it be stated somewhere that listas=Smith, Sir John is not correct and it should be listas=Smith, John. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHaired one -- If you can find the time, would you please take a look at the comment I've added to the discussion re Category:Jewish American scientists? I believe the need to articulate what I wrote there crystallized in my mind as a result of reading your very interesting comments in the DRV for Category:African American baseball players. Regards, Cgingold 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is apart from the encyclopedic listing of wider refference source material but I ain't a barrister so arguing is no fun. Better to delete than be encyclopedic. Or maybe if I just listed refferences instead is it same difference but maintainable? See List of wards in Greater London Jed keenan 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I relisted that discussion to WP:UCFD (it seems to be intended as a user category) and expanded its scope to include the 19 subcategories? Mostly, I want to ensure that the comments made so far are transferred ... although I have to admit that I'm tempted to simply close the discussion as "delete" and then delete the subcats (which would become orphaned) per CSD G6. Please let me know your thoughts. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:D
... But, seriously, thank you again. I consider you an exceptional editor and your words mean a lot. ... I'm also glad that the explanations that I occasionally attach to my closures have a useful purpose other than serving as practice reading material for psychoanalysts. ;) –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that over the past 24 hours Kitty has move the titles of a number of articles relating to Baronets. Now it kicked off big time over this time especially when now disambing is required. We have just had an arbcom and the issue of Baronet played a large part in this, I would be tempted to change them all back and report Kitty but in the spirit of the arbcom I would like you to see if you can sort it out. regards-- Vintagekits 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me commenting here but Kittybrewster has had a constant long-term interest in Baronets for possibly obvious reasons - he is one. Referring to the recent "The Troubles" ArbCom it was stated that those involved should not intrude upon the obvious areas of interest of those 'named'. I think its unlikely that Kitty has been busy on Ulster pages or indeed on anything much to do with Ireland, nor, indeed on boxers. Maybe Vintagekits could explain what his great fascination and intense interest is now with Baronets - how it ties in with his normal interests so evident from his contributions history. From where I am sitting the principal breach of good faith and the Arbcom seems obvious. David Lauder 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I first must say that if it was me to decide than you been chosen for having the most elegant nickname on wikipedia :). Any way, I replied to your last comment there.-- Gilisa 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a conversation at the village pump about WP:Music, seems they are having the same exact problem we were having at WP:Fict. I posted talking about our issue and pointing issues with the multiple notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_guidelines_for_songs.3B_resolution_needed Ridernyc 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the AfD notice off David H. Kelley and put an oldafd notice on the talk page. Any steps I missed? I'll leave an AfD regular to properly close the AfD itself. Carcharoth 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask for your assistance on the above page please due to current vandalism/edit warring? I have attempted to discuss this with User:Recicla but they seem intent on continuing to revert changes. I believe that their reversions of sourced material represent vandalism and/or a breach of WP:3RR Thanks, Valenciano 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear BHG, one must at least respect such a powerful opponent as oneself. However, please do consider that your actions may have negative consequences on the future education of the world's children. Your actions have no impact on research or the older scientific community, which regards Wikipedia with disdain and little more than a kid-pedia. The fact that I risked a lot of reputation to come here and educate the under-30 crowd should say a lot about me. In addition to my own article, Louis's article, the supercentenarian trackers category, etc, we now have pro-myth opponents seeking to undo the work done to stop the myth-makers, from the USA and elsewhere. That at least two of the pro-myth crowd (that insisted Mary Wood was '120' in 1908, when evidence showed otherwise) chose to violate COI and opine against me on my own AFD page says a lot. Whether an individual article or a collective article exists, there certainly needs to be one. As Guinness World Records said in 1979:
The Guiness Book of World Records, discussing old-age claims, frankly warns readers: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity.” http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/moments/oldfolks.html
Is 'process' more important than truth? Actually both are important. Truth must be arrived at through process. I find it incredulous that, though CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc all find me notable, Wikipedia does not. Yet what is on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia today? A fake story about World Wrestling Entertainment, Vince MacMahon, and Bret Hart. If that's what Wikipedia wants to be, then so be it. But I had hoped it would be an actual fact-based encyclopedia. Children today are educated through TV, video games, and Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they knew that "Quahog" was the town where 'Family Guy' was located, but had never heard it was a clam. Apalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Because you occasionally seem reasonable, I have posted the below commentary. This is basically my viewpoint. I think the current AFD's for my article (and possibly Louis Epstein's) is wrong, simply because the standard of 'academic' is being applied, when I am really a hybrid, academic and organizer. Louis is not an 'academic'. Amateur astronomers have discovered comets, and been deemed notable (such as [[Shoemaker-Levy). Thus it isn't fair to apply an 'academic' standard when the real measure should be: Impact. Did these people make a difference? Is there work cited by others? Are they in the 'historical timeline'? If the answer is 'yes', then they are notable, from a history viewpoint. I don't really fit well in any categories. Nonetheless, I am 33, not 80. Time will tell.
To me the issue still remains: Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. The article extreme longevity researchers should focus on, mainly, the group as a whole. Each Wiki-link provides more information on the GRG, Stephen Coles, the Max Planck Institute, James Vaupel, Guinness World Records, etc. Even A Ross Eckler Jr. The only thing missing is: what did Louis Epstein and Robert Young do?
It therefore stands to reason to have a separate, Wikilinked article that gives background information on that. Due to COI 'issues,' it seems the majority of Wikipedians simply can't see that this was an organizational issue.
Fact: Louis Epstein almost single-handedly kept the 'tradition' alive when Guinness deleted the 'national longevity recordholders' after the 1991 edition. By 1998, through Louis's efforts at http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html, the GRG decided to pick those up, and went from '2,000 hits'/year to 100,000+ hits a year. Let's face it, Dr. Coles and Epstein together made a more powerful team than alone. In 1999, I joined the team. I had been keeping my own private lists since 1988, and by 1999 I had my own, rival lists, which the GRG also posted (though it's not a complete rivalry: Louis keeps middle names, while I keep places of birth and death, and about 95% of the cases are on both lists, even though I have about 1100 and he is behind, at about 1000).
In 2000, a competing group, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, invited myself and Mr. Epstein to Rostock, Germany and started the FIRST International Conference on Supercentenarians. Thus we were there from the very beginning. How rapidly did things evolve? From that first meeting, the Social Security Administration decided to launch a study, and Jean-Marie Robine decided to start the International Database on Longevity. Notably, by 2002 the Epstein/Young lists were cited as 'the' lists by major, published works:
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The IDL database is complemented by an international list of supercentenarians gathered on. the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Though critical of some demographic deficiencies, my lists have continued to grow. In 2002, I founded 'World's Oldest People' which, while just a Yahoo webgroup, has been cited on the Yahoo front page portal as a source for 'more information.'
Today, virtually all the scientific publications cite the Epstein or Young tables, even though there are two camps: more liberal, American, and 'anti-aging' are the GRG, Rejuvenation Research (with Aubrey de Grey), and the SRF. More mainstream/European and concerned with demography are the Max Planck Institute in Germany, the International Database on Longevity, INSERM (with Vaupel/Robine/etc). Recently the New England Centenarian Study has upped the ante:
http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505
Also, some have taken a less scientific, more popular-media approach. In 2002, the Earth's Elders Foundation hired me to help them put together a book on supercentenarians, which led to an exhibit at the United Nations:
http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Elders-Wisdom-Worlds-Oldest/dp/0976910802
Note also that Guinness World Records, aware of the Epstein/GRG connection, decided in the year 2000 to rely primarily on Mr Epstein and myself as consultants for the world's oldest person titles, which included oldest person, oldest man, oldest American, oldest twins, etc. They continued to do 'oldest British person' by themselves.
In 2001, I scored my first 'hit' with Marie Bremont, whom French researcher Jean-Marie Robine personally thanked me for getting her into the Guinness Book. Since 2001, every titleholder has come from either myself or Mr Epstein. In 2005, I was promoted to Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records. Hence, I now oversee claims from the entire world.
To User Brown-Haired Girl, this was simply an ego-trip. I note she claimed she had a 110-year-old aunt but refused to divulge who it was. Let's face it: if you don't like a program on TV, don't watch it. But don't interrupt everyone else's viewing.
Note that I'm the only person in the world who is involved in every organization primarily cited by the media or research articles concerning supercentenarians: the GRG, the Max Planck Insitute, the NECS, the SSA, GWR, and the SRF.
As such, I argued that I was 'notable' NOT based on the qualifications of an 'academic' but as an organizer. I note that this field is not yet taught in schools as courses, but it is beginning to 'seep' in. Ironically, in two of my classes material used by the professor included me in it. One student recognized me from the WOP book.
Yet I realize there's no use trying to climb uphill, but there must be a certain lower limit to this current 'bear run' against supers. I believe that removing the Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues will result in better treatment in the future. When the current hysteria, which has extended to even tagging William Thoms (is his article now suspect as well?), is quite ridiculous. Nothing short of a 'Nobel prize' will seem to placate these invidiuals, even though Wikipedia is chock full of articles on no-name drummers from some third-rate kids' band, or college football players who scored ONE career touchdown...like Keeley Dorsey.
Thus, it seems three things need to happen:
1. The use of a third-party, reputable editor who can 'filter' information, thus avoiding charges of COI or bias.
2. As time goes on, more material will prove me right and when the time comes, someone else will resurrect what was destroyed.
3. In the meantime, perhaps a paragraph or two in this article about the '1990's and the '2000's would give an opportunity for the above 'history' to be incorporated. Because, remember: I do hold a degree in World History.
I don't see myself notable as an 'academic'(yet) but as a 'media expert/source' and an organizer, not just of lists, but of groups. That I was a founding organizer of the SRF is already documented. That I was the only founder not yet with a graduate-level degree speaks to my ability already.
http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm
That Guinness decided to hire me, when they could choose anyone else, said something. That I've already topped out in the sub-field (can't go higher than #1) means that I will be shifting my focus to the academic. I don't expect to be 'famous' immediately. Further, I do not seek the 'American Idol' type of fame, fame for fame's sake. I do seek to change the public's mindset about human longevity, longevity myths, and the potential for scientific and public enhancements. That the next time someone advocates that Mary Wood is 120, Micajah Weiss is 114, or that William Coates is 114, they'll take a step back, think critically, and say: where is the evidence? What are the chances? Because if only 1 in 10 million people lied about their age, if we have four people: one is 114, one is 95 but claims 114, one is 90 but claims 120, and one is 80 but claims 130, who will be the last to die? Chances are, the REAL supercentenarian will NEVER outlive every false claim. And thus the need for age verification.
Beyond that, listmaking, there are issues of extrinsic/intrinsic aging. The GRG has already identified new causes of death at age 100+ that haven't been considered as likely until now. The GRG has also developed new hypotheses as to the gender-specific aging differential. By 2010, the USA will have over 100,000 centenarians, and over 100 supercentenarians. Thus it will also become an economic issue as well as a science one: because it's not just the number of people, but the number of years. 100,000 times 100=ten million years. That's a lot of years on this planet.
Yet, ten years from now, I may be DEAD, who knows? Promise does not equal results. However, if health allows I have already developed several theories which, within the next two decades, may establish a separate notability as WP:ACAD which I admit I do not yet meet. So, please stop with the GSU-checking. I only graduated 3.96 with triple honors, sorry. Ryoung122 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you should know BHG that Ryoung22 has admitted creating a sock puppet User:Aslan119 see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 for the details. Watching the AfD debate on Robert Young's article there is some very unusual posting activity to say the least. I have not seen anything like it since ThePiper et al was engaged in creating trouble earlier in the year. I think some of them need to be looked into, especially the two with minimal posting history. - Galloglass 12:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
BHG go check the admin notice board. It looks like Ryoung122 wants to take his harassment of you to new heights. - Galloglass 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've closed the ANI discussion based on the fact that it's not an admin incident and there isn't really anything else to discuss in that arena. If you disagree then please feel free to reopen the discussion. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You may find this useful at some point ... User:ProveIt/index. Feel free to add stuff you think is appropriate... It came out of a discussion I had with Sam at the last meetup. -- Prove It (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Gamble_%28centenarian%29 Ryoung122 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just deleted a whole paragraph of an AfD debate copy-pasted here by Ryoung122. Robert, I have reminded you of WP:TPG often enough, and have had enough of your spamming of my talk page. Please don't post anything to my talkpage ever again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why you placed an {{unref}} tag on Bob Wright (baseball)? Every thing in the article came from the source listed. Please enlighten me -- thanks! -- Fabrictramp 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. User:Caroig recreated geobox categorisation system, although it was deleted by you in WP:CFD. Categories which are generated by his template now are e.g. "Citys with geobox" or "Rivers with geobox". All are shown in the main namespace, again. Do you think they should be thrown to CFD:SPEEDY ? Or his template maybe should be altered again, in order to not generate categories. It is a recreation of deleted content. - Darwinek 15:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the article, though it's still a stub. 3 international reliable references, and an interesting story - she was a published author. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
BHG have a look at the above individuals contrbution to the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles. Its so badly presented and formatted I think it can only be a sock puppet of a very recently banned individual. Take a look and see what you think. - Galloglass 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The AfD on Stephen Coles is looking like sock/meat puppet central! At least it’s easy to tell who is doing the posting by stream links to sources that don't even mention Stephen Coles half the time. I would not like to be a journalist let alone an academic working from any information collated by this gerontology research group if this is an example of its output. All very very dubious indeed. - Galloglass 12:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl;
I am messaging you, as I have messaged about three others, because I see that you are an administrator and fairly active at WP:AN/I. I have a situation that I posted about there that has received little attention outside of one comment. If you could comment there, it would be fantastic, or possibly also lend me some advice as to what I should do. I would really like to restore the changes the anon user has made, but I do not want to risk edit warring or breaking the 3RR. You can reply here with personal comments (your page is in my watchlist now) and at AN/I about the situation. Thanks! Charles 02:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Estonian male singers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Estonian male singers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Estonian male singers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot
07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you moved this page to disambiguate it back in 2006, but I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input. Brian0324 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a familiar collection of interests and traits. -- roundhouse0 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
He has started a crushade against Romanian editors. He blocked them and he revert their work. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 ( talk) 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please read Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-11-11? I haven't recreated the same categories, the system now works in a completely different way according to the suggestions in the numerous debates. If you have any objection, please state them clearly so that we can address them. Yeah, I noticed you didn't bother to answer my post at all though you suggested I posted any objection first there. The debate didn't have any outcome, you just closed it based on your personal view though they were many opposing views. If we aren't allowed any decent discussion again the only step that remains is arbitration because one of the paramount Wikipedia principles is severly attacked here. – Caroig ( talk) 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 13#Geobox_categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your willingness to face the wrath of the Department of Homeland Security and the whole world by removing nonnotable Yahoo Groups linkspam. What kind of 110 year old knows how to use a message board anyway? Smashville BONK! 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Your recent edit [14] of the Geobox template caused apparition of "|}" at the beginning of every article with a geobox (e.g. Bratislava), but I am not able to fix it. Could you look at it please? Frankly, that error is more disturbing for me than a bunch of categories that you removed by your edit. I really hope it will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you a lot in advance. Tankred 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps these should go to afd, since they will probably be contested--and might just possibly be notable if better sources could be found. I removed some prods that I saw. This does not mean I am out of sympathy with your actions on this type of material--I have !voted to delete several such articles. You suggested listifying, but in the current mood towards lists, I wonder whether such lists would not be soon deleted. Possibly the solution might be to propose a merge? --or did you try that already. DGG ( talk) 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because there are several dozen other redirects from "WPNATION" for other WikiProjects for nation-states. The standardization of redirects makes editing much easier when one is adding templates very rapidly. Badagnani 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for all your hard work lately and for keeping your cool. I thought I'd let you know that I have membership access to ancestry.com and subsequently to any American census records available on there. So if for some reason you find articles that need additional references for census data, let me know and I can look them up. I don't know what to do about the membership-only aspect of the content on ancestry.com, but I can at least double check it and cite the census rather than some other third-party site. Since the census is a public record, perhaps it would permissible to use screenshots of the census pages as a reference? I'd have to check Ancestry.com's terms of use agreement. Just let me know if I can help, I've only run across a couple of the articles you may be watching where this could be an issue. Thanks again! Katr67 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Craig_(Irish_Professor). - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this for me repeatedly warned but has took no notice thanks. BigDunc 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking back over the Stan Primmer business, and I noticed this long comment you made. Do you think next time something like this happens you could consider following JzG's example of using the {{ welcome}} template? I should have remembered this myself, but I can understand that sometimes spotting the new editors can be difficult in cases like this. Carcharoth 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, happy I could contribute! Wim. -- Crusio 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone watching this page who might be interested, I thought I'd note that I have created a bot called BHGbot, to be used for a limited number of specific purposes. BHGbot has not been approved: see the request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot.
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#BHGbot_to_tag_WP:IE_articles.3F. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Trial run now completed, full approval requested. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot#Trial_run_complete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you s-protected some of those gerontology and supercentenarian articles. Do you think 2 months is a bit excessive? Anyway, I'm currently reading the GRG and Stephen Coles AfDs... Carcharoth 02:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm also still unhappy about some of the fall out from this. See here, where the edit summary incorrectly refers to Ryoung122 as a banned user. I'm also unhappy that an indef blocked template has been put on his user page. This means that his user page and user talk page may be deleted, making a mockery of my suggestion that he take time to cool off and then refile an unblock request and see if he can edit Wikipedia productively. Do you think you could talk to Maxim and ask if he is prepared to redo the block for a year, to avoid this deletion of user pages problem? I would ask Maxim myself, but the last few talk page messages I left haven't got much response. Carcharoth 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way is there a way to kick out admins ? There may is point where the good things admins do, is outweighed by the power misuse. Each democratic system has checks and balances, what must happen that a amok running admin (I dont say this is the case which BHG) must leave wikipedia. As a simple user and former donator of wiki I simple would like to know this. Chris Quast
Please have a look at this edit made by your bot [15] ,Thanks Gnevin 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cjeales 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You posted at my Talk, with my reply following: ANI re your canvassing ===
{{ANI-notice|WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, since you were the first admin to notice Pet St John's canvassing, I'd like to notify you that I have lodged a further complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The_votestacking_exercise_continues. Whilst now being conducted mostly (though not exclusively) on the maths wikiproject, the attempt to " get out the vote" continues more than 24 hours after you first drew Pete's attention to WP:CANVASS. As noted at ANI, I have never seen anything else on wikipedia remotely resembling this effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I've recently become very aware of the extent and breadth of your contributions. I am in awe of that. I personally know the dismay one sometimes feels when great effort appears unappreciated. That pain I do not wish you. I have multiple complaints and I'm doing something about them, but if you do feel that, even fleetingly, in this matter, I honestly regret it. Pete St.John 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
BH, could you check this out and see what makes good categorisation sense. Regards ( Sarah777 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
redirect Jallianwala Bagh massacre -> Amritsar massacre ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. DGG ( talk) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the transclusion (merge) of the two (previously) largely overlapping List of castles in Ireland. Much better now. N2e ( talk) 09:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask that you s-protect as an i.p. user (most likely a former banned user) has continued to alter it despite the consensus of about 5 editors. p.s. How about the Spain politics cats above? Thanks, Valenciano ( talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Various contributions from the sockpuppets and meatpuppets cajoled into action by blocked Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed something about a debate regard the tracking of people over 110 years old. And that you were significantly involved in it.
I haven't followed it in detail tho and I'm not part of the wikipedia edit community.
Just wanted to mention that I sometimes check in on that page out of interest, and quite like it as it is.
I also check in on the surviving WW1 vets page quite a lot. My great grandfather was one.
Just thought I'd add in my comments that I enjoy the pages in their current form.
Please take this into consideration if poss. Thanks.
all the best,
Mic (S Korea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.167.204 ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 November 2007
Why are you attacking and deleting everything about Super-Centenarians and Longevity, and so on?
I think it is good reading, compared to the stuff that you contribute. As far as I think, I think your Adminstration powers should be taken away from you. The power is going to your head. I am making a formal complaint.
I enjoy reading about what Mr. Robert Young puts in here. It helps with genealogical informations.
Richard Girouard of Montreal, Quebec, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip69 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is Gunther - the one on the cactus see: http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/kaktus.jpg
I admire your productivity and passion by which you are able to continue to administrate so many wikipedia sites. I share lots of your interests:Canis beagle owns me, I prefer gender neutral speech, I like to the right things (clime the cactus, touch the heavens with my feet), I have lots of Ireland friends (but am bohemian).
I am not asking you for anything, just let you know that, most likely, by accident you blocked my IP address while editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Coles
Cheers, Gunther Kletetschka -- Kletetschka2 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at your various taggings of various articles about oldest people or gerontology researchers for Notability, PROD, or AFD. Most are good - I think I even deleted one of your AFDs myself, just today. But a few - just a few - have been a bit overenthusiastic. Alphaeus Philemon Cole I think is one I found - his obituary was in the New York Times, as well as another NYTimes article I couldn't read so didn't link to, his papers are in the Smithsonian Institution, he was president of a number of societies - and, ironically, not a bit of this notability had to do with him being the world's oldest living man. He was just notable as an artist, and as an artistic historian/bureaucrat. I wonder if, by chance, you could recall some other articles that implied their subject just possibly might have been notable, and either look at them again yourself or bring them to my attention. There were quite a few that you tagged these past days, and it would be a shame if good articles went down with the dross. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please look at this; I think the article should now be tagged as clearly breaching Wiki NPOV Policy Attempts at discusiion-- Aatomic1 ( talk) 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny how Aatomic1's link leaves out their little bit of disruption. ---- Domer48 ( talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we not go down this route again please people. We've just finished a several month arbcom in this area. Time to start compromising and agreeing however painful it is rather than standing like immoveable objects which go know-where. - Galloglass 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you were interested in baronets who were also MPs. My 4x great-grandfather, General Sir Howard Douglas, was 3rd Baronet of Carr, and served as MP for Liverpool from 1842-1847. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvalin ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 November 2007
Sorry, sometimes I hit the sensitive touchpad on my new laptop with my hand, and it causes me to send a message before I'm done. Anyway, if you have any questions about Sir Howard Douglas, please let me know. Cvalin ( talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Again,
I noticed Kittybrewster had made some changes to one of the pages on my watchlist, and went to look at the changes. Once there, I realized that previously an anonymous user had gone into the article I had written on Admiral Sir William Henry Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Carr, and took it upon his/herself to completely rework the article for Sir William Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Kelhead. I wanted to undo all the previous changes, but I thought I should check with you first, since you are both an administrator and a member of the Baronetcy Project.
I had created a number of links to my article, from Admiral Sir Charles Douglas, Sir Howard Douglas, Carr Baronetcy (which has since been incorporated into the Douglas Baronetcies article), and others, and those links all go back to the incorrect person now.
Thanks! Cvalin ( talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot ( talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You might look again at your [ [16]]. As the category now stands, they all appear, with varying degrees of clarity, to offer degree courses. Johnbod ( talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHaired one: I have no idea what you might say, but if you can scrounge up some time, I think this discussion would benefit from your participation. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no hope that any words or evidence can be mustered by ANYONE to change your small-minded, puritanical stance against gerontological information on wikipedia. It seems to me that something is notable when it can be verified, and when a large amount of people are interested in it. Frankly, other than some random page-browsing, all I use wikipedia for are the "world's oldest people" articles. Wikipedia, for the fleeting moment, is the easiest way to keep on top of these issues, and I personally resent your attempts to make finding this information more difficult. You are making the world of scholarship and information a poorer place indeed, all out of a misguided and crusading insistence on the LETTER of the code, not the SPIRIT. Even if you have no interest in them, you have never been able to explain to my satisfaction just what harm results from those articles remaining online for those who DO have an interest. You are the definition of a "spoil-sport" I don't go around deleting long dead baronets just because no-one has heard of them. Try as I might, I cannot "assume good faith" from someone with such censorious zeal. Does the sheer number of people you have made unhappy cause you to think you just might possibly be on the wrong course? Probably not. And by the way, I am not a meat-puppet, sock-puppet, or any other sort of puppet of Robert Young's. I've never met or corresponded with the man. I just enjoy his work, because he is a CREATOR, whereas you, madam, are a DESTROYER, and can only ever leave the world a worse place than you found it. Feel free to delete this now and continue your smug witch-hunts. If silence is consent, I cannot remain silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.44.2 ( talk) 20:59, 16 November 2007
But with this policy wiki never can get academic. At least not in new special fields. Cause there are always front line researchers, and how should they put there knowledge to wiki ? If this knowledge is scientific common sence it last maybe 5 years, wow cool, wiki always on the top !! And normal contributers also cant put it to wiki because they simple dont know about it. I think it is by far more likly a nonexpert contributes/writes an bad article than an expert do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.138.122 ( talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied to your message here: User talk:Patleahy#Category:Unit display/doc. -- PatLeahy ( talk) 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on this issue [17]; it has been resolved [18]. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I create categories myself (and if so how?) or does this need to be an admin? I've noticed that Wikipedia is seriously lacking in Spanish politics and elections articles and I've started creating them but lack the relevant categories. Cats needed would be Category:Spanish Parliament Electoral Districts with a subcategory Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Congress of Deputies (or similar wording). Eventually a second subcat Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Senate would need to be created, but there are currently no articles for it until I get around to creating them. I believe that would be a much better home for articles such as Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District) and Asturias (Spanish Congress Electoral District) rather than the generic politics in Spain category.
Similarly Category:Members of the Spanish Parliament or Category:Members of the Spanish Cortes Generales with a sub-category Category:Members of the Spanish Congress of Deputies and eventually a second subcat Category:Members of the Spanish Senate would seem to make sense. Thanks, Valenciano 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As you'll see, I haven't suggested any senate categories yet, because my head was starting to spin and I thought we might overload ourselves if we try doing everything at once.
I hope this all helps. Do you want to take a look at that and see what you think? Once we've been through the list, I can give you some pointers on how to create them ( WP:CAT has some guidance, but it's a little sketchy). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me just say what a great job I think you're doing with the supercentenarian lists. Maybe when people actually see what the lists look like (ie. a biographical stub rather than just the bare bones), the opposition to the lists will be less. One question, however. Someone has brought up the concern that Marie Brémont should have her own article, rather than a redirect. Her situation is a little different than the usual, as she was at one time the world's oldest person and has a number of sources to establish notability, including a BBC obituary. While I'm not a huge fan of all these perma-stubs, I think Marie Brémont might have a legitimate claim to her own article. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. Cheers, CP 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering if you were aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. Neal ( talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
User talk:Ryoung122#suggested_compromise_on_supercentenarians
Isn't this a reasonable compromise at all though, huh? Extremely sexy ( talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal at User talk:Ryoung122, in case you missed it. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am coming to you for advice on a point of Admin. I chose to approach you because you and I have a poor record together, and therefore nobody can accuse me of crawling along to a pal (by the way I still feel profoundly displeased with the appalling way I believe you, and the closing Admin, behaved at that WP:CFD regarding Scottish MPs several months ago, but let's leave sleeping dogs lying).
The thing is, a User who I have a strong personal distaste for, has been edit warring his way through Wikipedia for some months now. This kind of activity is not entirely unusual here at Wikipedia, but what I do find remarkable is that he never misses an opportunity to make blatant personal attacks on my good self, usually in Edit summaries but also on Talk pages, whenever our paths meet. Even my most vigorous opponents in the past have knocked that childishness on the head after a while, but this guy just keeps going, and I am sick to the back teeth of the lack of Admin action.
To the particular case in hand: User:Breadandcheese has been gaily edit warring on the Inverness article ever since his attention was brought to it by this (failed) attempt at civil discussion by Ben MacDui. I kept out of the Inverness dispute until yesterday. I would like to say that it was due to self-restraint, but that is not true: I was on holiday, here (note: if you have any good sense you will not follow my example).
Breadandcheese just breached 3RR this morning, but I am buggered if I am going to waste my time reporting it. For a start I did not bother putting upp the 3RR template on his Talk page yesterday evening, although why that should be necessary I do not know, cos he has been made aware of it before.
Anyway, apart from the particular unpleasantness at Inverness, how the hell do we get it through to this idiot that he cannot just launch into attack mode the second he sees me? -- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
British or international - but surely not wikiproject Ireland. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
You're a great contributer to wikipedia and i feel at lot of people forget about you even though you are great, welldone , keep up the good work Mr.whiskers ( talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi! I hope you are doing well. Be encourage you are trying to do the best you can. Thank you for all you are doing concerning Wikipedia. Thank you again= RFD ( talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Noel Dempsey article should be unprotected now as the controversy surrounding him has blown over and he did give a reprieve to learner drivers by extending the limit to June for those on their 2nd provisional. Having it protected now is hindering the articles progress. -- Netwhizkid 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
cfd?? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw your message on his talk page; maybe you could direct him to the Arbitration Committee mailing list if he wishes to contest his block (as is the advice given to sockpuppetteers/banned/indefinitely blocked users).
Just a suggestion. -- Solumeiras talk 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello BrownHairedGirl, if you do choose to leave Wikipedia, I'm sure you will be missed. In any event, I certainly wouldn't quit Wikipedia over Robert Young. He shouldn't be that important in your Internet life to affect such a decision. But I do suggest people can be part-time Wikipedia or take short vacations from the Internet. I myself have been part-time with Wikipedia only until a couple days ago. Anyways, I'm all into the no-stress philosophy. Therefore, if taking a short break is helpful, or being part-time, take it, but quitting entirely isn't worth it. Neal ( talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
(Echoes the above.) I can easily understand why you feel this way, but I hope that you feel able to stay. Your tireless work for WP would be sadly missed by many editors - in particular, your work at CfD, where I see you most often on my travels, is always conscientious and productive. Take a break if you need it, but come back afterwards please! Bencherlite Talk 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes.. echo. Unfortunately the list goes on about those that have been under the wrath of Robert Young. I myself have been under his fury several times. Matter fact, in August 2006, I was on the verge of being banned by Robert in his Yahoo world's oldest people group. The secret to my stable relationship with him, is that he is an explosive kind of guy, whereas I'm good at receiving the anger. Therefore, we don't get into that bad of a dispute.
I also see believe we should be looking forward to the future. But before we do that, I'm going to bring up the past again, about last night, which I have written a poem about.
I was looking out at the moon,
through the windows in my room.
I realized I was no longer alone,
when Robert Young called me on the phone.
I felt as if I were in danger.
Hearing his voice expressing in anger.
He was raging mad over false accusations,
I couldn't help buy give my recommendations.
I don't know whether to say I might,
I didn't feel as if he were bright.
He sent all those meat puppet troops,
that came from the Gerontology Research Group.
If he could excuse my pardon,
but the GRG was just a walled garden.
I never knew anyone who was so stubbornly bold,
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
that fought so much for the articles of the extremely old.
For someone who's name was Young.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
He certainly can be dumb.
Neal ( talk) 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
Hi BH I know you have chided me for it in the past for fighting fire with fire but I do really believe that women are targeted for extreme attention in the hope that they will crack and give up. There as so many examples in my brief time here - you probably know them. I certainly don't want to suggest you keep at something you feel is stressful but I'd hate to give the b******s the satisfaction of "winning". Stay if you can; maybe concentrate on the IrlProj for a while - we badly need a bit of help! ( Sarah777 ( talk) 11:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Looking at the above text, I failed to see how the incident involved gender. Mainly because I could think of an alternate incident, except with a guy. RYoung122 and Canadian_Paul had a similar fight, which eventually went to the notice boards in August 2006 because the 2 couldn't get along, all because Canadian_Paul nominated a 114 year-old woman for deletion. I suppose this was the case of Robert's block in August 2006. This led to Canadian_Paul nominated more and more supercentenarian articles for deletion. As usual, Robert posted on his boards about Canadian_Paul, as well as a list of all the articles he nominated to deletion. In other words, anyone who nominates a supercentenarian article for deletion is a threat to Robert, regardless of gender. Neal ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
I do applaud in general the effort that this editor has put into Wikipedia, but I think sycophantic acclaim is completely unwarranted and undeserved. I'd reccommend a refresher course in the principles of Wikipedia and to not get bogged down in the pettyfogging minutea of some policy page somewhere - you'd probably make (even) more meaningful contributions then. RichyBoy ( talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"sycophantic acclaim" ain't something anyone with more Userboxes than edits is ever likely to suffer from! ( Sarah777 ( talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
Dear BrownHairedGirl
Not wanting to risk a POV flag again (or Barry Manilow!) can I pass on some updates for my entry amongst English MPs?
Select committee memberships: I have this week stepped down from the Communities & Local Government Committee following my appointment last month to the Environmental Audit Committee instead. EAC vets the environmental impact of any government department or policy. These changes should be verifiable on www.parliament.uk or by ringing the relevant select committee clerks on +44 (0)20 7219 3000.
Leadership contest: I'm again on Chris Huhne's campaign team in the new leadership contest against Nick Clegg.
Campaigns: As shadow environment minister, I'm now a bit more cautious about biofuels arguing for the importance of clear certification to ensure they are sustainable; I have also campaigned for a tough climate change bill, and against government planning reforms which threaten local peoples' rights. All verifiable from Hansard or on www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/martin_horwood/cheltenham.
As MP for Cheltenham, I campaigned vigorously against a new Parkway railway station on greenbelt land between Cheltenham and Gloucester which would have taken services away from Cheltenham (or more properly Cheltenham Spa) station. See my website www.martinhorwood.net for press releases, etc.
Hope you're well and keep up the good work.
Cheers Martin Horwood MP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.169 ( talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
Because you deserve it. Keep up the great work. Kbdank71 ( talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
I think the discussion process for the deletion on the Korean fruits category is not balanced. Except two people, the voter for deletion of Korean fruits are Japanese editors or of JPOV per history. Especially, three of them are famous for their anti-sentiment. As Badagnani's saying, they are using it as another battleground of Japanese-Korean dispute. The biased consensus can't be true 'consensus. -- Appletrees ( talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hallo BHG, I've just recycled the "cool message thingy" too, thanks - it's a neat idea! I've also created my first talk page header, largely based on it, and nicked recycled the idea of including current date and time. Could you point me to any useful documentation about how to do that sort of thing (ie layout and fonts etc for userpages etc), other than just recycling other people's nice examples? Thanks!
PamD (
talk)
14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you upgrade the protection on this to full protection please? At the moment all you've done is shut out one side in a content dispute, which is against the protection policy. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you were going to do another CFD for this category. I just wanted to know if I should start recategorizing them. [20] Oh and I'm defiantly stealing the cool message thingy. Thanks VartanM ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yo - thank you for contributing to the Katherine Plunket article. I'm sure there are other Irish supercentenarians around. A to do list for you (no rush). Here's some articles you can start in your free time, with sources. And then you can probably start an Irish supercentenarians category/list pending the Dutch/French/British/etc. don't get deleted. You're probably the #1 person in WikiProject: Ireland, that knows the most about supercentenarians by now.
Born and died in Ireland.
Maggie Dolan 27/07/1893 - 02/12/2004 111 years 128 days
-Source:
http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2004/07/29/news/49193.html as Ireland's oldest woman and titanic survivor. That's 2 titles!
Born in Ireland but died somewhere else.
Catherine Furey 06/04/1893 - 30/11/2003 110 years 238 days source: Emily Schoenhofen/NECS.
Source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5089/is_200312/ai_n18498893 Ireland's oldest woman dies.
Born somewhere else, died in Ireland.
Elizabeth Yensen 25/07/1895 - 04/12/2005 110 years 132 days - spent the last 70 years of her life in Ireland
-Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4715067.stm per Ireland's oldest woman celebrating 110th birthday.
-
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2005/12/11/elizabeth-yensen-78057-16470944/ Just mentioning her death.
By the way these were all checked and none of them exist on Wikipedia. Neal ( talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks - amended. I see RY's revenge above! Johnbod ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You put an {{unreferenced}} tag on A58 road. I can't see anything controversial in this stub article, and WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Are you challenging the facts in the article?
I've clicked around various other UK road articles, and can't see any where there are references given for the actual route of the road, as opposed to specific bypass construction, incidents, etc. What sort of reference would you expect to see? The available 3rd-party source is any road atlas, but is it a good use of time for someone to work through every single UK road article and add a formal reference to an atlas? There's also [21]. What do you think? Just curious, really, as to what sort of sourcing you'd expect to see on this article and the vast number of similar ones!
There doesn't seem to be a WikiProject as such on UK roads, just some people who've put a lot of effort into creating templates and list pages - I'm not a roads specialist myself, just created A660 road because it's my local main road, and edited A58 road with which it intersects in Leeds. I included a link to the SABRE site as "External links" - would you accept that as sufficiently referenced? PamD 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG: I've just discovered that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads (newly renamed/merged from "UK Motorways" project, and I'm not sure that even that one has been around for long!). That would be an interesting place to discuss the whole issue of what constitutes good references for roads. I see they list SABRE as a resource. Cheers, PamD ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Royalty <> Nobility <> Peerage
Example is Robert Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe whose talk page includes WPBiography. There seem to be a large number of peers who are therefore nobility, whose nobility does not make them royalty. I think royalty-work-group needs to be re-jigged somehow. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) You might want to check this list of auto-tagging edits: quite a lot of false positives there. I have fixed a few, but there are many still to do. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing special. Just one thing: is there a way to make a navbox stick to the bottom of a talk page, like the box you have created for yours? I have developed a navbox for my user pages (to fit in with the main user page's "proper article" theme) and I want to add it to my talk page, but cannot find the way to avoid its going up with each new section. Can you help, please? Waltham, The Duke of 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Dan Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Hammer1980·
talk
01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Should be Deaths with .... Nobody dies from it. Some die from complications arising from it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for arbitration concerning the Geobox categories here. – Caroig ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be speedy tagging categories that have been empty for three days. The speedy template suggests that categories need to be empty for at least four days to qualify. I know this is a trivial difference, but perhaps we should wait one more day to ensure that nobody complains on a technicality. - Jehochman Talk 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really ... I've been doing that when I come across an empty cat which I know doesn't qualify for C1. I don't want to bother CFD with a bunch of empty categories, but at the same time I don't want to kill new ones. The result is that they stay in the orphanage until they become old enough to kill as C1. The real issue is that it's hard to know how long a cat has been empty ... it's obvious when it's new but often not otherwise. Usually I'll leave a note in the edit history that says something like Speedy delete Nov 30th, etc. -- Prove It (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you update the links from Gaelic Games to Gaelic games in {{ GaelicGamesdecade}} and its peers and {{ S-sports}} , Thanks Gnevin ( talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This falls fully under the heading of "you in no way have to".
I'd like to request that you nominate Category:Women by occupation and its subcats for discussion at CFD.
Yes, based on your previous comments, I will presume that as nominator this would be a nomination to "keep", but as the page is Categories for discussion, I don't see this as a problem at all.
I just feel that, as you appear to be the topic's main proponent, you would be the best to illustrate the reasons for keeping.
I only ask that you please consider this. - jc37 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you see this (in "constantly vandalised") - can it be speedied? Johnbod ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Ok - done (was copy of entire G bush page if you didn't see) Johnbod ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a request for editing the protected template, {{ hndis}}, which you just edited. If you're still online, could you make the requested edit, please? It is widely used and quite broken right now. jwillbur 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading your reply to my comment on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_26#Category:People_with_ADHD I spent some time reading the policy pages related to categories and lists, but still don't feel that I have a good understanding of when categories vs lists vs nothing are most appropriate. You obviously know much more about this than I do since you are an administrator and active on the CfD page. Could you articulate for me in a little more detail why Category:People_by_medical_or_psychological_condition is not an appropriate category? -- Triggtay ( talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could share your thoughts in this discussion at WP:VPP on the issue of changing links-to-redirects-that-are-not-broken. I contributed one example of an edit for comment, and there was consensus that it was an unnecessary edit. I then went off in search of further examples for comment and found a similar sort of edit which happens to be by you. I mentioned it in discussion at WP:VPP. I put it forward as stimulus for further discussion, not as criticism of it. John Broughton suggested it could be the result of using popups with the option "Automatically fix links to bypass redirects and disambiguation pages" enabled. I'd appreciate hearing your views as an experienced editor. I am hoping to generate some discussion of the issue, and see if there is a consensus for clarifying certain aspects of the related guidelines. I look forward to hearing your thoughts over there. Thanks. - Neparis ( talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, protecting a template after reverting it without any motivation whatsoever isn't particularly convincing. Indirectly describing my edits as vandalism also strikes me as being needlessly hostile.
Peter Isotalo 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Japanese citrus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/ c 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, BHG, but how did you come across the category of Australia Club members in the first place? Where was it linked from that you stumbled upon it? As I said, I'm just curious. It always amazes me where I end up in terms of article obscurity when I'm reading articles. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a little advice on this please BHG two editors will not enter any discourse on the article I have put Citation tags in which keep getting removed and spurious refs inserted links to last fm and links to compilation cds to show this artist is signed to warner. I have checked amazon music to find out about this mans music nothing came up and also google all to little or no avail. Trying to imply that he is notable because he worked on remixes to famous artists, never worked actually as far as I can find with any of the artists mentioned. Thanks BigDunc ( talk) 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed, as it was you who taught me this. While performing the merge of Dave Martin into David Martin, I piped every link through the text, "David Martin", believing I had seen this style elsewhere. Then I saw your edit comment on this same page from about a month ago. Not wanting to disappoint you, I unpiped all the links in the edit you saw. I would not have known the right way to do it without your help. Best regards, Hult041956 ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG - FYI, I drafted Occupations, gender roles, and women's history and will begin drafting relevant articles for individual occupations as appropriate. -- Lquilter ( talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
While on the subject of original research and golden oldies, what think you of the 1897/1907 debate on Ruby Muhammad? I note that at least two websites, genarians.com and Dead or Alive info have already changed their information based on the Wikipedia entry. The German Wikipedia entry, meanwhile, has completely discarded the notion that she may have been born in 1897. When I brought up the World's Oldest People forum for debate as a reliable source, no one seemed to mind, so I left it as it was. Now that the debate has been revived, however, I thought I'd get your input. The only sources that claim the 1907 birth, at least one's that don't seem to be getting their info from Wikipedia, are Robert Young's site and Robert Young's fan site. Strikes me as very ORish, especially since someone pointed out that the evidence listing her as born in 1907 also lists her as being white (although I may have misinterpreted this, I'm no expert). Cheers, CP 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
E-mail from Robert Young. Reply to CP's paragraph.
1. How would CP know where NN&C gets their info from? That's an unproved assertion and should be disallowed.
2. The evidence from the 1910 census does NOT list Ruby as 'white'...FALSE. Any citations for that claim? However, I do seem to recall someone finding a 'Ruby' born in the 1890's that turned out to be 'white'. So, CP doesn't have his story straight.
3. The WOP is a 'private' group...well, I guess you could call Wikipedia a 'private' group...they don't let everyone in, do they?
4. Actually, the research was done by Filipe Prista Lucas.
Reply to BrownHairedGirl's paragraph.
Actually, if we go by 'verifiable sources'...the disparaging remarks made by BHG are 'unsourceable.' NO ONE outside of Wikipedia has challenged the reliability/believability of the data. The REAL irony is that BHG has concocted a fantasy world where she is 'right' based on faith-based original research, and where I am 'wrong' (even though I can source my statements, and she can't).
I'm probably the only 1 who notices this, but, the fact that Robert links to his WOP post as source/reference and blocks non-members (private) sort of makes it a good reason to sign up and join his group, right? Neal ( talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
I know you're on Wikibreak, but I'm just recovering from food poisoning and just got around to seeing this note. I'm a little bit sickened that I replied to him when he raised these questions with me privately, and yet here they are posted without my responses. I won't waste your time repeating my answers, especially since he wanted to "discuss central issues privately." What nonsense all of this is. Cheers, CP 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, BHG - I hope you will take a look at the analysis & comment I appended on the CFD for Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel in support of renaming to Category:Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regards, Cgingold 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a bit of advice on this Aatomic1 seems to have a thing about adding lists of dead and I dont want to get in to an Edit War thanks. BigDunc ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your replies. I think that BigDunc hits the nail on the head when he asks whether "this list does not warrant a separate article". That's my reading of it: that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL means no separate article for the list, and no separate articles for individuals notable only for their tragic death ... but that it does not deprecate a short list of the dead in an article on the event itself.
I have been doing some further checks on other fires, (which has led me to start creating Category:Fires by year), and so far I have found New Cross Fire which does have a list and Bradford fire which doesn't. I'll do some further checking and draw up a longer list, but the New Cross Fire seems like an interesting comparison, because it was such a similar event (that similarity actually became part of the debate, because the black communities of South London were disgusted that the London media ran huge coverage of the Stardust fire, but very little of the disaster in their own city; the possibility of arson was also a contentious issue inn New Cross, albeit the other way round). I guess at one level we all have an interest in this one, because I think that most people in Ireland have strong feelings about the fire, but it's still a fair distance from the sorts of involvement defined in WP:COI. Maybe, though it does suggest that we will need someone from another continent to sort it out.
It seems to me that the mediation at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and has degenerated into an argument which only risks building more antagonism. I suggest that an RFC is appropriate. If you like, and if aatomic1 agrees, I'd happy to draft a summary of both sides views to launch the RFC. Obviously I will post it only if all involved agree that it's a fair summary of the situation. Would you like me to try? (No offence at all if you say no!) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, since there seems to be agreement for the idea from the main parties to the dispute, I'll try drafting something later today. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for all your help BigDunc ( talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Sorry BHG is this RfC going to deal with this article exclusively or is it going to take in to account Aatomic1's disregard for this process which is still on going and continued edit warring on Birmingham Pub Bombing article. BigDunc ( talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefare a WP:RFCC with good reason I think. The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. When the mediator has to revert an editor involved in the mediation twice you have to consider bad faith. Having had to be warned to revert the mediator is just to undermine their role. Edit warring only makes that task more difficult. All I want is reasoned discussion, and I don't think we have been getting that. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Coming way late to this party - I too would definitely welcome your drafting an RFC - and thanks for offering. As an aside - would it be possible to restore Dreamafter's mediation pages and put them somewhere accessible to all? I was gobsmacked to see he'd deleted everything relating to several months work by all sides. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG.. I wonder if, after your wikibreak, you would like to check out the situation at Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and its talk page? I am inexperienced in article writing and also with regards to situations like this, but the original author is hostile about any changes in his work on the article, calling those who would question the tone and the encyclopedishness of the article itself sockpuppets, malicious, malevolent or worse. I wonder if you would lend your considerable experience to this matter and perhaps help cool Zeng8r down? I have no idea how to talk to him, and perhaps you could offer more valuable advice or help reach a compromise, more than I ever could. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
Scotland_constituency#Members_of_Parliament_returned_for_Scotland contains a lot of wrong links. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you keep posting notability tags in articles about place names in Tolkien's works? Are Valinor, Fangorn, Beleriand, etc. not notable to you? Although this is material out of one of the most-read works of literature? I really suspect you are trying to abuse your administrative powers here. Instead of trying to remove said articles, you should try to expand them. Please stop your private rampage. Cush 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You are with out a doubt the rudest person I have encountered in two years on wikipedia. You're rudely telling them to take a flying leap and read the guidelines, which they have already said he believes are too extensive. You interpet them to unbreakable commandments, and have taken a puritan stance on it all. I've noticed most of them you end up attaking things you disagree with, as if you're the surpreme authority here. I, and many tens of thousands of others, would be extremely upset if Wikipedia was not as broard and extensive as it is. If I could not look up extensive amounts of side information on interesting fictional works. I can't help but say, "What is your obsession with following arbitrary guidelines to the t and the i." So much that you are attacking perfectly acceptable articles and offending the large user bases who have worked on them, and the many people who look them up. Would you like to turn wikipedia into a boring, standard encyclopedia. One of things I like about this site is that I can look fiction and find a great of aside information wirtten by knowledgeable readers, helpful information too, nad I'm sure it's not just me, but many other people using this site that do the same. You are clearly a Tolkein fan. Fine, that's great - it's often passion for a particular subject that draws people to write articles on wikipedia. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you need establish that those subjects are notable enough to have an article. There is no point in expanding an article on a non-notable subject, and if my tagging encourages editors to concentrate less on documenting every minor detail and concentrate more on ensuring that their articles are properly referenced and their subjects meet the notability guidelines, then I think that's a good outcome for everyone. Again, What is your obssession with the wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia is an online site for people to read up on things, than Tolkien fans who are trying to look into his works, have a right to have access to articles on the known information on the major geographical places. Stargate SG-1 has about fifty pages worth of articles on the various fictional alien races and planets and technology, are you opposed to that. I believe you are outside your zone her, as your main projects seem to be hundreds and hundreds of works on British Legislators. It seems that everywhere I run into a controversial article deletion tag, you are involved in it, and are fighting with the writers of the article, and very uncivily at that, in fact I have never read a polite and civil argument posted by you. I would say you're on a power trip as I see your name constantly on deletion pages, most of the time for articles that have otherwise good content and relevance. I would say that you and your group of supporters need to quit trying to delete every article you dislike or don't think falls perfectly under the guidelines, you don't have be a puritan. And, the absolute worst part of it is that most of the things I've seen you try to delete are outside of your said areas of knowledge and interest, giving you no right to pass judgement on them, on what other people with different interests are working on. On a last note, you say that a topic has to have a particular amount of notability? Well these do. I interpet that to say I, can't and shouldn't, write an article on myself. I am not notable, Valinor is. You have no right to make that judgement based on the fact you think it's silly. That fact is that the enormousness of that piece of literature and the amount of fans of might look up information on it, make it notable, not what you think about it. There is plenty of room on wikipedia, for your interests, mine, theirs, their is room for all semi-notable well written, and informative information. That is the whole purpose of the this site, to amass use and interesting information. The site is not running out of memory, so therefore you shouldn't be going out of your way to delete perfectly good articles based on your own puritanically dictatoral view of the notability guideline, it's a power trip, 100% a power trip. I'm sorry for the way the formating came up, it really got away from me. I would just like to add, again, that I have read through most of the Tolkien pages, all of them are perfectly good, though a few need more information and their are people working on that.-- Robert Waalk 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the below message left on my user page:
[edit] 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)
Dear BHG,
{a screenful of irrelevancies deleted by BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)}
I am here on Wikipedia to 'give back' to the community and educate the public. I am not here to cause problems for long-time Wikipedians. However, it is true that what I do may not be well-known to the general public. Yet when you hear of the world's oldest person passing away, everyone hears of that.
Sincerely, Robert Young World's Leading Expert Ryoung122 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And, if by the off chance I don't know who it is, if you have the documents I'll add her to the worldwide database. How about that? Ryoung122 12:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The current Irish record is 111 years 327 days set by Katherine Plunket (in 1932!), the oldest record in the book. Other public Irish cases to 110+ include Florence Lytle, Elizabeth Yensen, and Catherine Furey...a very short list. We know that Irene Richardson (born May 29 1896) made it to 109 but no updates since. The lists we have include over 1,000 cases worldwide.
Please note that my original creation of an 'autobiography' was partly factored by the creation of the article David Allen Lambert by himself...an autobiography. He was involved with ONE supercentenarian case. ONE. I had over 1,000. He deemed himself notable with a little self-publicity coverage. Seem fair? Not quite. Also, some have been asserting that persons such as Mary Ramsey Wood were '120' when the evidence pointed to 97. When the question became 'on what authority' do you say she was 97, it made sense to create my own article and provide a link to it from the appropriate article...because, in actuality, I am the authority.
Note I didn't include in my autobiography: parents, high school, anything like that. Only material relevant to answering the question: why should a reader of Wikipedia trust me when I say that someone like Micajah Weiss isn't really 114 years old? As a child, I was 'fooled' by several cases that turned out to be false, such as Pierre Joubert (claimed to be 113, turned out to be 82). It became my mission to educate the world as to how long people really live. Wikipedia is a part of that education mission.
Note that I was the major case contributor and co-organizer for this book, which also was made into a featured exhibit at the United Nations:
http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html
This book included a foreword by U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders. That was in 2002...before Guinness hired me.
So, already in 2002, persons like Jerry Friedman searched for an expert and they found me. He lived in Connecticut...I lived in Atlanta. Hardly what I'd call a 'local' story.
Yet even earlier, in 2000 I had gotten an invitation to Germany to attend the FIRST annual conference on supercentenarians. In 2004 I was called to help form the 'Supercentenarian Research Foundation.' Thus I have been not just an 'editor' or 'listmaker' but involved in setting up the very apparati that are now involved in this emerging field.
When the Wall Street Journal wanted an expert, who did they turn to?
Jeff Zaslow, the Wall Street Journal"We had so much information that he was lying," says Robert Young, .... Club Has One Requirement: 110 Birthday Candles," The Wall Street Journal, pp. ... www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Similarly, I have also been cited/quoted/mentioned in the NY Times, Japan Times, BBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. I actually worked on a project for an NBC news segment in 2005 with Max Gomez.
OK, if you don't think that makes one notable, then fine. But I expect to see junk like Keeley Dorsey done away with. Two touchdowns and oops, died at 19 from the heat while in practice, does not constitute 'notability.'
By the way, I have already developed the 'XX theory' of gender differentials in supercentenarians. It's not due out, however. I agree on the 'professor' front I'm 'not yet notable.' That will probably change in the future. But in the meantime it seems that I should be counted as 'notable' based on the fact that, when the media want a person to turn to regarding supercentenarians, they often turn to me. That's over 1,000 newspapers on all six continents...North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia. This is not a little 'hometown' citation. For example, ABC news:
ABC News: 2nd Oldest Man in World Dies at Age 113Moses Hardy, Last Known Black WWI Vet, Dies at 113; Listed As 2nd Oldest Man in the ... Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2711726 - Similar pages
ABC News: Oldest Person Dies at 114 in ConnecticutEmma Faust Tillman, World's Oldest Known Person, Dies at 114 ... Her four-day reign was the shortest on record, said Robert Young, senior consultant for ... abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2831097 - Similar pages
Interestingly, even 'spam' websites like this:
http://seniorjournal.com/SeniorStats.htm
have cited me (even though I'm not linked to it and not deriving any money from it).
Thus, there is no 'fear' that mine would be the 'first' of many additional articles. Actually, mine wasn't the first... E Ross Eckler Jr, who worked for Guinness in the 1950's, was the first article. Thus I see myself as continuing in that tradition. I did not decide to be notable...others decided for me. Every group I was with, invited me to 'help' them get started on the subject. I have done more than 'create' lists. While true that Louis Epstein was also a pioneer, I have already invented several concepts including organizing data by 'oldest by year of birth' and invented ideas such as the 'age bubble effect,' 'XX theory of gender-related lifespan differential' (why women live longer). In 2002, I overturned the long-standing notion that 'life expectancy increase in the West began about 1750', instead demonstrating it went back to the 1200's. That's notable...to researchers. Maybe not to those concerned about cartoons on TV.
So, I propose this: I will be 'polite' and 'civil'. In exchange I request that you not delete material that, even if you don't consider relevant, I do, and consider that some statements made, even if not intentional, may have been incorrect. For example, that article you said didn't mention me, actually mentioned me seven times. It is only fair for whomever may vote to delete me would do so based on the actual facts, not miscontrued information. Is that too much to ask?
Sincerely, Robert Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 November 2007
Dear BHG,
In response to this message:
Addituonally, it now turns out that you have been blatantly canvassing this AfD ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), which I will take to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that some of those persons either voted 'no' or hadn't voted at all, which hardly argues for one-sided canvassing. I do believe in a 'jury of peers' and again, I have a few main issues which I believe were unfair in this process from the beginning:
1. The deletion or collapse of my arguments meant that, '4000 words' or no, few if any probably actually read them. Wikipedia is 'not paper' so the length of a response should not matter, as long as it is pertinent.
2. When it appears that editors with a personal vendetta or bias don't recuse themselves from the 'non-vote', it can hardly be called a 'fair' process. That includes AboutMovies, KittyBrewster, PeteForsyth, and ShotInfo, as well as yourself, considering it is traditional for the 'nominator' not to actually vote and that your nomination came after a few controntational issues regarding the 'supercentenarian trackers' debate. For example, ShotInfo decided to 'vote' against me after I removed something from the David Horrobin article. That is evidence of 'bad faith'. So, I cannot assume 'good faith' for those who demonstrated 'bad faith.'
3. The posting of incorrect information, which was never corrected.
Please send me a link to the ANI if you do decide to go ahead with this. Ryoung122 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a misuse of the category system and I'm wondering if some of this mess needs to be cleaned up. Things like categories for articles that don't exist strike me as a bad road to go down. Otto4711 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Ontario_municipal_election_results_templates leads to alll sorts of blue links that should be de-linked. Is there a way to do a mass tagging? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This discussion related to canvassing by Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs), who posted his reply both here and on his talk page. I have replied at User talk:Ryoung122#Category:_Supercentenarian_Trackers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this ip he vandalised Wall Street article last night and if you look at his talk page you will see that he has been warned repeatedly it seems it is an account just for vandalisim thanks. BigDunc 10:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've noticed you doing some more tagging, and I'd like to thank you for that. One question - is there an easy way to generate a list or category of the articles you've tagged? I'd like to be able to review such a list, as some will be easy to deal with straightaway (such as On Fairy-Stories). I can't work out any easy way, other than following your contribs logs, or using Template:ME-importance, or a variant of that. What do you think? Carcharoth 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you have time to check this. Wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you meant by the tag. BTW, I left an earlier response at the same time as a previous one (in the section started by Otto), so just making sure you didn't miss that. Carcharoth 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Project-specific_templates. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Rose Dugdale finished, after much hard work.... One Night In Hackney 303 14:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
is being vandalised. Please would you fix and semi-protect. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As our resident expert on Irish administrative miscellany, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derry, County Sligo? This looks to be headed for a delete vote under highly dubious circumstances (the place patently does exist) - but do you think Wikipedia's "all named geographic locations should have their own article" policy breaks down at the townland level?
Incidentally you're now in the top 10 of all time by edit count... — iride scent 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my response here. CJCurrie 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up Category:Urban_legends and I can't figure out why Talk:Killer badger is listed or how to remove it. 08:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I have rewritten TTI Telecom, originally a spam article, and included references since you nominated it for deletion. I invite you to take another look at the article and its AfD before the AfD closes shortly. I am not affiliated with the company; in fact, I PROD'd their 4 other articles -- see Talk:List of network management systems.
Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me an obvious MoS, but please could it be stated somewhere that listas=Smith, Sir John is not correct and it should be listas=Smith, John. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! -- Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHaired one -- If you can find the time, would you please take a look at the comment I've added to the discussion re Category:Jewish American scientists? I believe the need to articulate what I wrote there crystallized in my mind as a result of reading your very interesting comments in the DRV for Category:African American baseball players. Regards, Cgingold 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is apart from the encyclopedic listing of wider refference source material but I ain't a barrister so arguing is no fun. Better to delete than be encyclopedic. Or maybe if I just listed refferences instead is it same difference but maintainable? See List of wards in Greater London Jed keenan 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I relisted that discussion to WP:UCFD (it seems to be intended as a user category) and expanded its scope to include the 19 subcategories? Mostly, I want to ensure that the comments made so far are transferred ... although I have to admit that I'm tempted to simply close the discussion as "delete" and then delete the subcats (which would become orphaned) per CSD G6. Please let me know your thoughts. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:D
... But, seriously, thank you again. I consider you an exceptional editor and your words mean a lot. ... I'm also glad that the explanations that I occasionally attach to my closures have a useful purpose other than serving as practice reading material for psychoanalysts. ;) –
Black Falcon (
Talk)
20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that over the past 24 hours Kitty has move the titles of a number of articles relating to Baronets. Now it kicked off big time over this time especially when now disambing is required. We have just had an arbcom and the issue of Baronet played a large part in this, I would be tempted to change them all back and report Kitty but in the spirit of the arbcom I would like you to see if you can sort it out. regards-- Vintagekits 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me commenting here but Kittybrewster has had a constant long-term interest in Baronets for possibly obvious reasons - he is one. Referring to the recent "The Troubles" ArbCom it was stated that those involved should not intrude upon the obvious areas of interest of those 'named'. I think its unlikely that Kitty has been busy on Ulster pages or indeed on anything much to do with Ireland, nor, indeed on boxers. Maybe Vintagekits could explain what his great fascination and intense interest is now with Baronets - how it ties in with his normal interests so evident from his contributions history. From where I am sitting the principal breach of good faith and the Arbcom seems obvious. David Lauder 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I first must say that if it was me to decide than you been chosen for having the most elegant nickname on wikipedia :). Any way, I replied to your last comment there.-- Gilisa 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a conversation at the village pump about WP:Music, seems they are having the same exact problem we were having at WP:Fict. I posted talking about our issue and pointing issues with the multiple notability guidelines. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_guidelines_for_songs.3B_resolution_needed Ridernyc 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I took the AfD notice off David H. Kelley and put an oldafd notice on the talk page. Any steps I missed? I'll leave an AfD regular to properly close the AfD itself. Carcharoth 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask for your assistance on the above page please due to current vandalism/edit warring? I have attempted to discuss this with User:Recicla but they seem intent on continuing to revert changes. I believe that their reversions of sourced material represent vandalism and/or a breach of WP:3RR Thanks, Valenciano 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear BHG, one must at least respect such a powerful opponent as oneself. However, please do consider that your actions may have negative consequences on the future education of the world's children. Your actions have no impact on research or the older scientific community, which regards Wikipedia with disdain and little more than a kid-pedia. The fact that I risked a lot of reputation to come here and educate the under-30 crowd should say a lot about me. In addition to my own article, Louis's article, the supercentenarian trackers category, etc, we now have pro-myth opponents seeking to undo the work done to stop the myth-makers, from the USA and elsewhere. That at least two of the pro-myth crowd (that insisted Mary Wood was '120' in 1908, when evidence showed otherwise) chose to violate COI and opine against me on my own AFD page says a lot. Whether an individual article or a collective article exists, there certainly needs to be one. As Guinness World Records said in 1979:
The Guiness Book of World Records, discussing old-age claims, frankly warns readers: “No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity.” http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/moments/oldfolks.html
Is 'process' more important than truth? Actually both are important. Truth must be arrived at through process. I find it incredulous that, though CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc all find me notable, Wikipedia does not. Yet what is on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia today? A fake story about World Wrestling Entertainment, Vince MacMahon, and Bret Hart. If that's what Wikipedia wants to be, then so be it. But I had hoped it would be an actual fact-based encyclopedia. Children today are educated through TV, video games, and Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, they knew that "Quahog" was the town where 'Family Guy' was located, but had never heard it was a clam. Apalling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Because you occasionally seem reasonable, I have posted the below commentary. This is basically my viewpoint. I think the current AFD's for my article (and possibly Louis Epstein's) is wrong, simply because the standard of 'academic' is being applied, when I am really a hybrid, academic and organizer. Louis is not an 'academic'. Amateur astronomers have discovered comets, and been deemed notable (such as [[Shoemaker-Levy). Thus it isn't fair to apply an 'academic' standard when the real measure should be: Impact. Did these people make a difference? Is there work cited by others? Are they in the 'historical timeline'? If the answer is 'yes', then they are notable, from a history viewpoint. I don't really fit well in any categories. Nonetheless, I am 33, not 80. Time will tell.
To me the issue still remains: Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. The article extreme longevity researchers should focus on, mainly, the group as a whole. Each Wiki-link provides more information on the GRG, Stephen Coles, the Max Planck Institute, James Vaupel, Guinness World Records, etc. Even A Ross Eckler Jr. The only thing missing is: what did Louis Epstein and Robert Young do?
It therefore stands to reason to have a separate, Wikilinked article that gives background information on that. Due to COI 'issues,' it seems the majority of Wikipedians simply can't see that this was an organizational issue.
Fact: Louis Epstein almost single-handedly kept the 'tradition' alive when Guinness deleted the 'national longevity recordholders' after the 1991 edition. By 1998, through Louis's efforts at http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html, the GRG decided to pick those up, and went from '2,000 hits'/year to 100,000+ hits a year. Let's face it, Dr. Coles and Epstein together made a more powerful team than alone. In 1999, I joined the team. I had been keeping my own private lists since 1988, and by 1999 I had my own, rival lists, which the GRG also posted (though it's not a complete rivalry: Louis keeps middle names, while I keep places of birth and death, and about 95% of the cases are on both lists, even though I have about 1100 and he is behind, at about 1000).
In 2000, a competing group, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, invited myself and Mr. Epstein to Rostock, Germany and started the FIRST International Conference on Supercentenarians. Thus we were there from the very beginning. How rapidly did things evolve? From that first meeting, the Social Security Administration decided to launch a study, and Jean-Marie Robine decided to start the International Database on Longevity. Notably, by 2002 the Epstein/Young lists were cited as 'the' lists by major, published works:
[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The IDL database is complemented by an international list of supercentenarians gathered on. the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages
Though critical of some demographic deficiencies, my lists have continued to grow. In 2002, I founded 'World's Oldest People' which, while just a Yahoo webgroup, has been cited on the Yahoo front page portal as a source for 'more information.'
Today, virtually all the scientific publications cite the Epstein or Young tables, even though there are two camps: more liberal, American, and 'anti-aging' are the GRG, Rejuvenation Research (with Aubrey de Grey), and the SRF. More mainstream/European and concerned with demography are the Max Planck Institute in Germany, the International Database on Longevity, INSERM (with Vaupel/Robine/etc). Recently the New England Centenarian Study has upped the ante:
http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505
Also, some have taken a less scientific, more popular-media approach. In 2002, the Earth's Elders Foundation hired me to help them put together a book on supercentenarians, which led to an exhibit at the United Nations:
http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Elders-Wisdom-Worlds-Oldest/dp/0976910802
Note also that Guinness World Records, aware of the Epstein/GRG connection, decided in the year 2000 to rely primarily on Mr Epstein and myself as consultants for the world's oldest person titles, which included oldest person, oldest man, oldest American, oldest twins, etc. They continued to do 'oldest British person' by themselves.
In 2001, I scored my first 'hit' with Marie Bremont, whom French researcher Jean-Marie Robine personally thanked me for getting her into the Guinness Book. Since 2001, every titleholder has come from either myself or Mr Epstein. In 2005, I was promoted to Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records. Hence, I now oversee claims from the entire world.
To User Brown-Haired Girl, this was simply an ego-trip. I note she claimed she had a 110-year-old aunt but refused to divulge who it was. Let's face it: if you don't like a program on TV, don't watch it. But don't interrupt everyone else's viewing.
Note that I'm the only person in the world who is involved in every organization primarily cited by the media or research articles concerning supercentenarians: the GRG, the Max Planck Insitute, the NECS, the SSA, GWR, and the SRF.
As such, I argued that I was 'notable' NOT based on the qualifications of an 'academic' but as an organizer. I note that this field is not yet taught in schools as courses, but it is beginning to 'seep' in. Ironically, in two of my classes material used by the professor included me in it. One student recognized me from the WOP book.
Yet I realize there's no use trying to climb uphill, but there must be a certain lower limit to this current 'bear run' against supers. I believe that removing the Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues will result in better treatment in the future. When the current hysteria, which has extended to even tagging William Thoms (is his article now suspect as well?), is quite ridiculous. Nothing short of a 'Nobel prize' will seem to placate these invidiuals, even though Wikipedia is chock full of articles on no-name drummers from some third-rate kids' band, or college football players who scored ONE career touchdown...like Keeley Dorsey.
Thus, it seems three things need to happen:
1. The use of a third-party, reputable editor who can 'filter' information, thus avoiding charges of COI or bias.
2. As time goes on, more material will prove me right and when the time comes, someone else will resurrect what was destroyed.
3. In the meantime, perhaps a paragraph or two in this article about the '1990's and the '2000's would give an opportunity for the above 'history' to be incorporated. Because, remember: I do hold a degree in World History.
I don't see myself notable as an 'academic'(yet) but as a 'media expert/source' and an organizer, not just of lists, but of groups. That I was a founding organizer of the SRF is already documented. That I was the only founder not yet with a graduate-level degree speaks to my ability already.
http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/organization.htm
That Guinness decided to hire me, when they could choose anyone else, said something. That I've already topped out in the sub-field (can't go higher than #1) means that I will be shifting my focus to the academic. I don't expect to be 'famous' immediately. Further, I do not seek the 'American Idol' type of fame, fame for fame's sake. I do seek to change the public's mindset about human longevity, longevity myths, and the potential for scientific and public enhancements. That the next time someone advocates that Mary Wood is 120, Micajah Weiss is 114, or that William Coates is 114, they'll take a step back, think critically, and say: where is the evidence? What are the chances? Because if only 1 in 10 million people lied about their age, if we have four people: one is 114, one is 95 but claims 114, one is 90 but claims 120, and one is 80 but claims 130, who will be the last to die? Chances are, the REAL supercentenarian will NEVER outlive every false claim. And thus the need for age verification.
Beyond that, listmaking, there are issues of extrinsic/intrinsic aging. The GRG has already identified new causes of death at age 100+ that haven't been considered as likely until now. The GRG has also developed new hypotheses as to the gender-specific aging differential. By 2010, the USA will have over 100,000 centenarians, and over 100 supercentenarians. Thus it will also become an economic issue as well as a science one: because it's not just the number of people, but the number of years. 100,000 times 100=ten million years. That's a lot of years on this planet.
Yet, ten years from now, I may be DEAD, who knows? Promise does not equal results. However, if health allows I have already developed several theories which, within the next two decades, may establish a separate notability as WP:ACAD which I admit I do not yet meet. So, please stop with the GSU-checking. I only graduated 3.96 with triple honors, sorry. Ryoung122 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought you should know BHG that Ryoung22 has admitted creating a sock puppet User:Aslan119 see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 for the details. Watching the AfD debate on Robert Young's article there is some very unusual posting activity to say the least. I have not seen anything like it since ThePiper et al was engaged in creating trouble earlier in the year. I think some of them need to be looked into, especially the two with minimal posting history. - Galloglass 12:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
BHG go check the admin notice board. It looks like Ryoung122 wants to take his harassment of you to new heights. - Galloglass 13:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've closed the ANI discussion based on the fact that it's not an admin incident and there isn't really anything else to discuss in that arena. If you disagree then please feel free to reopen the discussion. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You may find this useful at some point ... User:ProveIt/index. Feel free to add stuff you think is appropriate... It came out of a discussion I had with Sam at the last meetup. -- Prove It (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Gamble_%28centenarian%29 Ryoung122 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just deleted a whole paragraph of an AfD debate copy-pasted here by Ryoung122. Robert, I have reminded you of WP:TPG often enough, and have had enough of your spamming of my talk page. Please don't post anything to my talkpage ever again. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why you placed an {{unref}} tag on Bob Wright (baseball)? Every thing in the article came from the source listed. Please enlighten me -- thanks! -- Fabrictramp 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. User:Caroig recreated geobox categorisation system, although it was deleted by you in WP:CFD. Categories which are generated by his template now are e.g. "Citys with geobox" or "Rivers with geobox". All are shown in the main namespace, again. Do you think they should be thrown to CFD:SPEEDY ? Or his template maybe should be altered again, in order to not generate categories. It is a recreation of deleted content. - Darwinek 15:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the article, though it's still a stub. 3 international reliable references, and an interesting story - she was a published author. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
BHG have a look at the above individuals contrbution to the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles. Its so badly presented and formatted I think it can only be a sock puppet of a very recently banned individual. Take a look and see what you think. - Galloglass 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The AfD on Stephen Coles is looking like sock/meat puppet central! At least it’s easy to tell who is doing the posting by stream links to sources that don't even mention Stephen Coles half the time. I would not like to be a journalist let alone an academic working from any information collated by this gerontology research group if this is an example of its output. All very very dubious indeed. - Galloglass 12:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl;
I am messaging you, as I have messaged about three others, because I see that you are an administrator and fairly active at WP:AN/I. I have a situation that I posted about there that has received little attention outside of one comment. If you could comment there, it would be fantastic, or possibly also lend me some advice as to what I should do. I would really like to restore the changes the anon user has made, but I do not want to risk edit warring or breaking the 3RR. You can reply here with personal comments (your page is in my watchlist now) and at AN/I about the situation. Thanks! Charles 02:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:Estonian male singers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:Estonian male singers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:Estonian male singers, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot
07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you moved this page to disambiguate it back in 2006, but I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input. Brian0324 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a familiar collection of interests and traits. -- roundhouse0 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
He has started a crushade against Romanian editors. He blocked them and he revert their work. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Mikkalai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.254.193.119 ( talk) 16:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you please read Template talk:Geobox#News as of 2007-11-11? I haven't recreated the same categories, the system now works in a completely different way according to the suggestions in the numerous debates. If you have any objection, please state them clearly so that we can address them. Yeah, I noticed you didn't bother to answer my post at all though you suggested I posted any objection first there. The debate didn't have any outcome, you just closed it based on your personal view though they were many opposing views. If we aren't allowed any decent discussion again the only step that remains is arbitration because one of the paramount Wikipedia principles is severly attacked here. – Caroig ( talk) 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 13#Geobox_categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your willingness to face the wrath of the Department of Homeland Security and the whole world by removing nonnotable Yahoo Groups linkspam. What kind of 110 year old knows how to use a message board anyway? Smashville BONK! 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Your recent edit [14] of the Geobox template caused apparition of "|}" at the beginning of every article with a geobox (e.g. Bratislava), but I am not able to fix it. Could you look at it please? Frankly, that error is more disturbing for me than a bunch of categories that you removed by your edit. I really hope it will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you a lot in advance. Tankred 23:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps these should go to afd, since they will probably be contested--and might just possibly be notable if better sources could be found. I removed some prods that I saw. This does not mean I am out of sympathy with your actions on this type of material--I have !voted to delete several such articles. You suggested listifying, but in the current mood towards lists, I wonder whether such lists would not be soon deleted. Possibly the solution might be to propose a merge? --or did you try that already. DGG ( talk) 01:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, because there are several dozen other redirects from "WPNATION" for other WikiProjects for nation-states. The standardization of redirects makes editing much easier when one is adding templates very rapidly. Badagnani 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for all your hard work lately and for keeping your cool. I thought I'd let you know that I have membership access to ancestry.com and subsequently to any American census records available on there. So if for some reason you find articles that need additional references for census data, let me know and I can look them up. I don't know what to do about the membership-only aspect of the content on ancestry.com, but I can at least double check it and cite the census rather than some other third-party site. Since the census is a public record, perhaps it would permissible to use screenshots of the census pages as a reference? I'd have to check Ancestry.com's terms of use agreement. Just let me know if I can help, I've only run across a couple of the articles you may be watching where this could be an issue. Thanks again! Katr67 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Craig_(Irish_Professor). - Kittybrewster ☎ 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this for me repeatedly warned but has took no notice thanks. BigDunc 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking back over the Stan Primmer business, and I noticed this long comment you made. Do you think next time something like this happens you could consider following JzG's example of using the {{ welcome}} template? I should have remembered this myself, but I can understand that sometimes spotting the new editors can be difficult in cases like this. Carcharoth 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, happy I could contribute! Wim. -- Crusio 18:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone watching this page who might be interested, I thought I'd note that I have created a bot called BHGbot, to be used for a limited number of specific purposes. BHGbot has not been approved: see the request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot.
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#BHGbot_to_tag_WP:IE_articles.3F. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Trial run now completed, full approval requested. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot#Trial_run_complete. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you s-protected some of those gerontology and supercentenarian articles. Do you think 2 months is a bit excessive? Anyway, I'm currently reading the GRG and Stephen Coles AfDs... Carcharoth 02:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm also still unhappy about some of the fall out from this. See here, where the edit summary incorrectly refers to Ryoung122 as a banned user. I'm also unhappy that an indef blocked template has been put on his user page. This means that his user page and user talk page may be deleted, making a mockery of my suggestion that he take time to cool off and then refile an unblock request and see if he can edit Wikipedia productively. Do you think you could talk to Maxim and ask if he is prepared to redo the block for a year, to avoid this deletion of user pages problem? I would ask Maxim myself, but the last few talk page messages I left haven't got much response. Carcharoth 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way is there a way to kick out admins ? There may is point where the good things admins do, is outweighed by the power misuse. Each democratic system has checks and balances, what must happen that a amok running admin (I dont say this is the case which BHG) must leave wikipedia. As a simple user and former donator of wiki I simple would like to know this. Chris Quast
Please have a look at this edit made by your bot [15] ,Thanks Gnevin 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cjeales 17:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You posted at my Talk, with my reply following: ANI re your canvassing ===
{{ANI-notice|WP:ANI#User:PeterStJohn_canvassing_of_DRV}}. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 15:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jc37, since you were the first admin to notice Pet St John's canvassing, I'd like to notify you that I have lodged a further complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The_votestacking_exercise_continues. Whilst now being conducted mostly (though not exclusively) on the maths wikiproject, the attempt to " get out the vote" continues more than 24 hours after you first drew Pete's attention to WP:CANVASS. As noted at ANI, I have never seen anything else on wikipedia remotely resembling this effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I've recently become very aware of the extent and breadth of your contributions. I am in awe of that. I personally know the dismay one sometimes feels when great effort appears unappreciated. That pain I do not wish you. I have multiple complaints and I'm doing something about them, but if you do feel that, even fleetingly, in this matter, I honestly regret it. Pete St.John 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
BH, could you check this out and see what makes good categorisation sense. Regards ( Sarah777 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC))
redirect Jallianwala Bagh massacre -> Amritsar massacre ? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. DGG ( talk) 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the transclusion (merge) of the two (previously) largely overlapping List of castles in Ireland. Much better now. N2e ( talk) 09:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask that you s-protect as an i.p. user (most likely a former banned user) has continued to alter it despite the consensus of about 5 editors. p.s. How about the Spain politics cats above? Thanks, Valenciano ( talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Various contributions from the sockpuppets and meatpuppets cajoled into action by blocked Ryoung122 ( talk · contribs). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed something about a debate regard the tracking of people over 110 years old. And that you were significantly involved in it.
I haven't followed it in detail tho and I'm not part of the wikipedia edit community.
Just wanted to mention that I sometimes check in on that page out of interest, and quite like it as it is.
I also check in on the surviving WW1 vets page quite a lot. My great grandfather was one.
Just thought I'd add in my comments that I enjoy the pages in their current form.
Please take this into consideration if poss. Thanks.
all the best,
Mic (S Korea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.167.204 ( talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 November 2007
Why are you attacking and deleting everything about Super-Centenarians and Longevity, and so on?
I think it is good reading, compared to the stuff that you contribute. As far as I think, I think your Adminstration powers should be taken away from you. The power is going to your head. I am making a formal complaint.
I enjoy reading about what Mr. Robert Young puts in here. It helps with genealogical informations.
Richard Girouard of Montreal, Quebec, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip69 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is Gunther - the one on the cactus see: http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/gunther/gunther/kaktus.jpg
I admire your productivity and passion by which you are able to continue to administrate so many wikipedia sites. I share lots of your interests:Canis beagle owns me, I prefer gender neutral speech, I like to the right things (clime the cactus, touch the heavens with my feet), I have lots of Ireland friends (but am bohemian).
I am not asking you for anything, just let you know that, most likely, by accident you blocked my IP address while editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Coles
Cheers, Gunther Kletetschka -- Kletetschka2 22:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at your various taggings of various articles about oldest people or gerontology researchers for Notability, PROD, or AFD. Most are good - I think I even deleted one of your AFDs myself, just today. But a few - just a few - have been a bit overenthusiastic. Alphaeus Philemon Cole I think is one I found - his obituary was in the New York Times, as well as another NYTimes article I couldn't read so didn't link to, his papers are in the Smithsonian Institution, he was president of a number of societies - and, ironically, not a bit of this notability had to do with him being the world's oldest living man. He was just notable as an artist, and as an artistic historian/bureaucrat. I wonder if, by chance, you could recall some other articles that implied their subject just possibly might have been notable, and either look at them again yourself or bring them to my attention. There were quite a few that you tagged these past days, and it would be a shame if good articles went down with the dross. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please look at this; I think the article should now be tagged as clearly breaching Wiki NPOV Policy Attempts at discusiion-- Aatomic1 ( talk) 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny how Aatomic1's link leaves out their little bit of disruption. ---- Domer48 ( talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we not go down this route again please people. We've just finished a several month arbcom in this area. Time to start compromising and agreeing however painful it is rather than standing like immoveable objects which go know-where. - Galloglass 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you were interested in baronets who were also MPs. My 4x great-grandfather, General Sir Howard Douglas, was 3rd Baronet of Carr, and served as MP for Liverpool from 1842-1847. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvalin ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 November 2007
Sorry, sometimes I hit the sensitive touchpad on my new laptop with my hand, and it causes me to send a message before I'm done. Anyway, if you have any questions about Sir Howard Douglas, please let me know. Cvalin ( talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Again,
I noticed Kittybrewster had made some changes to one of the pages on my watchlist, and went to look at the changes. Once there, I realized that previously an anonymous user had gone into the article I had written on Admiral Sir William Henry Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Carr, and took it upon his/herself to completely rework the article for Sir William Douglas, 2nd Baronet of Kelhead. I wanted to undo all the previous changes, but I thought I should check with you first, since you are both an administrator and a member of the Baronetcy Project.
I had created a number of links to my article, from Admiral Sir Charles Douglas, Sir Howard Douglas, Carr Baronetcy (which has since been incorporated into the Douglas Baronetcies article), and others, and those links all go back to the incorrect person now.
Thanks! Cvalin ( talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot ( talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You might look again at your [ [16]]. As the category now stands, they all appear, with varying degrees of clarity, to offer degree courses. Johnbod ( talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrownHaired one: I have no idea what you might say, but if you can scrounge up some time, I think this discussion would benefit from your participation. Best, Cgingold ( talk) 18:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no hope that any words or evidence can be mustered by ANYONE to change your small-minded, puritanical stance against gerontological information on wikipedia. It seems to me that something is notable when it can be verified, and when a large amount of people are interested in it. Frankly, other than some random page-browsing, all I use wikipedia for are the "world's oldest people" articles. Wikipedia, for the fleeting moment, is the easiest way to keep on top of these issues, and I personally resent your attempts to make finding this information more difficult. You are making the world of scholarship and information a poorer place indeed, all out of a misguided and crusading insistence on the LETTER of the code, not the SPIRIT. Even if you have no interest in them, you have never been able to explain to my satisfaction just what harm results from those articles remaining online for those who DO have an interest. You are the definition of a "spoil-sport" I don't go around deleting long dead baronets just because no-one has heard of them. Try as I might, I cannot "assume good faith" from someone with such censorious zeal. Does the sheer number of people you have made unhappy cause you to think you just might possibly be on the wrong course? Probably not. And by the way, I am not a meat-puppet, sock-puppet, or any other sort of puppet of Robert Young's. I've never met or corresponded with the man. I just enjoy his work, because he is a CREATOR, whereas you, madam, are a DESTROYER, and can only ever leave the world a worse place than you found it. Feel free to delete this now and continue your smug witch-hunts. If silence is consent, I cannot remain silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.44.2 ( talk) 20:59, 16 November 2007
But with this policy wiki never can get academic. At least not in new special fields. Cause there are always front line researchers, and how should they put there knowledge to wiki ? If this knowledge is scientific common sence it last maybe 5 years, wow cool, wiki always on the top !! And normal contributers also cant put it to wiki because they simple dont know about it. I think it is by far more likly a nonexpert contributes/writes an bad article than an expert do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.138.122 ( talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As a CFD regular, have you any thoughts on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not_a_structured_database? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied to your message here: User talk:Patleahy#Category:Unit display/doc. -- PatLeahy ( talk) 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I cc'd your comments from the journalism academics CFD to Category talk:Scholars by subject. -- Lquilter ( talk) 13:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on this issue [17]; it has been resolved [18]. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I create categories myself (and if so how?) or does this need to be an admin? I've noticed that Wikipedia is seriously lacking in Spanish politics and elections articles and I've started creating them but lack the relevant categories. Cats needed would be Category:Spanish Parliament Electoral Districts with a subcategory Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Congress of Deputies (or similar wording). Eventually a second subcat Category:Electoral Districts of the Spanish Senate would need to be created, but there are currently no articles for it until I get around to creating them. I believe that would be a much better home for articles such as Valencia (Spanish Congress Electoral District) and Asturias (Spanish Congress Electoral District) rather than the generic politics in Spain category.
Similarly Category:Members of the Spanish Parliament or Category:Members of the Spanish Cortes Generales with a sub-category Category:Members of the Spanish Congress of Deputies and eventually a second subcat Category:Members of the Spanish Senate would seem to make sense. Thanks, Valenciano 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As you'll see, I haven't suggested any senate categories yet, because my head was starting to spin and I thought we might overload ourselves if we try doing everything at once.
I hope this all helps. Do you want to take a look at that and see what you think? Once we've been through the list, I can give you some pointers on how to create them ( WP:CAT has some guidance, but it's a little sketchy). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, let me just say what a great job I think you're doing with the supercentenarian lists. Maybe when people actually see what the lists look like (ie. a biographical stub rather than just the bare bones), the opposition to the lists will be less. One question, however. Someone has brought up the concern that Marie Brémont should have her own article, rather than a redirect. Her situation is a little different than the usual, as she was at one time the world's oldest person and has a number of sources to establish notability, including a BBC obituary. While I'm not a huge fan of all these perma-stubs, I think Marie Brémont might have a legitimate claim to her own article. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. Cheers, CP 23:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Was wondering if you were aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch supercentenarians. Neal ( talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
User talk:Ryoung122#suggested_compromise_on_supercentenarians
Isn't this a reasonable compromise at all though, huh? Extremely sexy ( talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal at User talk:Ryoung122, in case you missed it. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am coming to you for advice on a point of Admin. I chose to approach you because you and I have a poor record together, and therefore nobody can accuse me of crawling along to a pal (by the way I still feel profoundly displeased with the appalling way I believe you, and the closing Admin, behaved at that WP:CFD regarding Scottish MPs several months ago, but let's leave sleeping dogs lying).
The thing is, a User who I have a strong personal distaste for, has been edit warring his way through Wikipedia for some months now. This kind of activity is not entirely unusual here at Wikipedia, but what I do find remarkable is that he never misses an opportunity to make blatant personal attacks on my good self, usually in Edit summaries but also on Talk pages, whenever our paths meet. Even my most vigorous opponents in the past have knocked that childishness on the head after a while, but this guy just keeps going, and I am sick to the back teeth of the lack of Admin action.
To the particular case in hand: User:Breadandcheese has been gaily edit warring on the Inverness article ever since his attention was brought to it by this (failed) attempt at civil discussion by Ben MacDui. I kept out of the Inverness dispute until yesterday. I would like to say that it was due to self-restraint, but that is not true: I was on holiday, here (note: if you have any good sense you will not follow my example).
Breadandcheese just breached 3RR this morning, but I am buggered if I am going to waste my time reporting it. For a start I did not bother putting upp the 3RR template on his Talk page yesterday evening, although why that should be necessary I do not know, cos he has been made aware of it before.
Anyway, apart from the particular unpleasantness at Inverness, how the hell do we get it through to this idiot that he cannot just launch into attack mode the second he sees me? -- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
British or international - but surely not wikiproject Ireland. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
You're a great contributer to wikipedia and i feel at lot of people forget about you even though you are great, welldone , keep up the good work Mr.whiskers ( talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi! I hope you are doing well. Be encourage you are trying to do the best you can. Thank you for all you are doing concerning Wikipedia. Thank you again= RFD ( talk) 21:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the Noel Dempsey article should be unprotected now as the controversy surrounding him has blown over and he did give a reprieve to learner drivers by extending the limit to June for those on their 2nd provisional. Having it protected now is hindering the articles progress. -- Netwhizkid 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
cfd?? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw your message on his talk page; maybe you could direct him to the Arbitration Committee mailing list if he wishes to contest his block (as is the advice given to sockpuppetteers/banned/indefinitely blocked users).
Just a suggestion. -- Solumeiras talk 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello BrownHairedGirl, if you do choose to leave Wikipedia, I'm sure you will be missed. In any event, I certainly wouldn't quit Wikipedia over Robert Young. He shouldn't be that important in your Internet life to affect such a decision. But I do suggest people can be part-time Wikipedia or take short vacations from the Internet. I myself have been part-time with Wikipedia only until a couple days ago. Anyways, I'm all into the no-stress philosophy. Therefore, if taking a short break is helpful, or being part-time, take it, but quitting entirely isn't worth it. Neal ( talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
(Echoes the above.) I can easily understand why you feel this way, but I hope that you feel able to stay. Your tireless work for WP would be sadly missed by many editors - in particular, your work at CfD, where I see you most often on my travels, is always conscientious and productive. Take a break if you need it, but come back afterwards please! Bencherlite Talk 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes.. echo. Unfortunately the list goes on about those that have been under the wrath of Robert Young. I myself have been under his fury several times. Matter fact, in August 2006, I was on the verge of being banned by Robert in his Yahoo world's oldest people group. The secret to my stable relationship with him, is that he is an explosive kind of guy, whereas I'm good at receiving the anger. Therefore, we don't get into that bad of a dispute.
I also see believe we should be looking forward to the future. But before we do that, I'm going to bring up the past again, about last night, which I have written a poem about.
I was looking out at the moon,
through the windows in my room.
I realized I was no longer alone,
when Robert Young called me on the phone.
I felt as if I were in danger.
Hearing his voice expressing in anger.
He was raging mad over false accusations,
I couldn't help buy give my recommendations.
I don't know whether to say I might,
I didn't feel as if he were bright.
He sent all those meat puppet troops,
that came from the Gerontology Research Group.
If he could excuse my pardon,
but the GRG was just a walled garden.
I never knew anyone who was so stubbornly bold,
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
that fought so much for the articles of the extremely old.
For someone who's name was Young.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
He certainly can be dumb.
Neal ( talk) 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
Hi BH I know you have chided me for it in the past for fighting fire with fire but I do really believe that women are targeted for extreme attention in the hope that they will crack and give up. There as so many examples in my brief time here - you probably know them. I certainly don't want to suggest you keep at something you feel is stressful but I'd hate to give the b******s the satisfaction of "winning". Stay if you can; maybe concentrate on the IrlProj for a while - we badly need a bit of help! ( Sarah777 ( talk) 11:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Looking at the above text, I failed to see how the incident involved gender. Mainly because I could think of an alternate incident, except with a guy. RYoung122 and Canadian_Paul had a similar fight, which eventually went to the notice boards in August 2006 because the 2 couldn't get along, all because Canadian_Paul nominated a 114 year-old woman for deletion. I suppose this was the case of Robert's block in August 2006. This led to Canadian_Paul nominated more and more supercentenarian articles for deletion. As usual, Robert posted on his boards about Canadian_Paul, as well as a list of all the articles he nominated to deletion. In other words, anyone who nominates a supercentenarian article for deletion is a threat to Robert, regardless of gender. Neal ( talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
I do applaud in general the effort that this editor has put into Wikipedia, but I think sycophantic acclaim is completely unwarranted and undeserved. I'd reccommend a refresher course in the principles of Wikipedia and to not get bogged down in the pettyfogging minutea of some policy page somewhere - you'd probably make (even) more meaningful contributions then. RichyBoy ( talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"sycophantic acclaim" ain't something anyone with more Userboxes than edits is ever likely to suffer from! ( Sarah777 ( talk) 02:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
Dear BrownHairedGirl
Not wanting to risk a POV flag again (or Barry Manilow!) can I pass on some updates for my entry amongst English MPs?
Select committee memberships: I have this week stepped down from the Communities & Local Government Committee following my appointment last month to the Environmental Audit Committee instead. EAC vets the environmental impact of any government department or policy. These changes should be verifiable on www.parliament.uk or by ringing the relevant select committee clerks on +44 (0)20 7219 3000.
Leadership contest: I'm again on Chris Huhne's campaign team in the new leadership contest against Nick Clegg.
Campaigns: As shadow environment minister, I'm now a bit more cautious about biofuels arguing for the importance of clear certification to ensure they are sustainable; I have also campaigned for a tough climate change bill, and against government planning reforms which threaten local peoples' rights. All verifiable from Hansard or on www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/martin_horwood/cheltenham.
As MP for Cheltenham, I campaigned vigorously against a new Parkway railway station on greenbelt land between Cheltenham and Gloucester which would have taken services away from Cheltenham (or more properly Cheltenham Spa) station. See my website www.martinhorwood.net for press releases, etc.
Hope you're well and keep up the good work.
Cheers Martin Horwood MP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.169 ( talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | ||
Because you deserve it. Keep up the great work. Kbdank71 ( talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
I think the discussion process for the deletion on the Korean fruits category is not balanced. Except two people, the voter for deletion of Korean fruits are Japanese editors or of JPOV per history. Especially, three of them are famous for their anti-sentiment. As Badagnani's saying, they are using it as another battleground of Japanese-Korean dispute. The biased consensus can't be true 'consensus. -- Appletrees ( talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hallo BHG, I've just recycled the "cool message thingy" too, thanks - it's a neat idea! I've also created my first talk page header, largely based on it, and nicked recycled the idea of including current date and time. Could you point me to any useful documentation about how to do that sort of thing (ie layout and fonts etc for userpages etc), other than just recycling other people's nice examples? Thanks!
PamD (
talk)
14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you upgrade the protection on this to full protection please? At the moment all you've done is shut out one side in a content dispute, which is against the protection policy. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you were going to do another CFD for this category. I just wanted to know if I should start recategorizing them. [20] Oh and I'm defiantly stealing the cool message thingy. Thanks VartanM ( talk) 06:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yo - thank you for contributing to the Katherine Plunket article. I'm sure there are other Irish supercentenarians around. A to do list for you (no rush). Here's some articles you can start in your free time, with sources. And then you can probably start an Irish supercentenarians category/list pending the Dutch/French/British/etc. don't get deleted. You're probably the #1 person in WikiProject: Ireland, that knows the most about supercentenarians by now.
Born and died in Ireland.
Maggie Dolan 27/07/1893 - 02/12/2004 111 years 128 days
-Source:
http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/dws/story.tpl?inc=2004/07/29/news/49193.html as Ireland's oldest woman and titanic survivor. That's 2 titles!
Born in Ireland but died somewhere else.
Catherine Furey 06/04/1893 - 30/11/2003 110 years 238 days source: Emily Schoenhofen/NECS.
Source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5089/is_200312/ai_n18498893 Ireland's oldest woman dies.
Born somewhere else, died in Ireland.
Elizabeth Yensen 25/07/1895 - 04/12/2005 110 years 132 days - spent the last 70 years of her life in Ireland
-Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4715067.stm per Ireland's oldest woman celebrating 110th birthday.
-
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/uk-and-international-news/2005/12/11/elizabeth-yensen-78057-16470944/ Just mentioning her death.
By the way these were all checked and none of them exist on Wikipedia. Neal ( talk) 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
Thanks - amended. I see RY's revenge above! Johnbod ( talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, You put an {{unreferenced}} tag on A58 road. I can't see anything controversial in this stub article, and WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Are you challenging the facts in the article?
I've clicked around various other UK road articles, and can't see any where there are references given for the actual route of the road, as opposed to specific bypass construction, incidents, etc. What sort of reference would you expect to see? The available 3rd-party source is any road atlas, but is it a good use of time for someone to work through every single UK road article and add a formal reference to an atlas? There's also [21]. What do you think? Just curious, really, as to what sort of sourcing you'd expect to see on this article and the vast number of similar ones!
There doesn't seem to be a WikiProject as such on UK roads, just some people who've put a lot of effort into creating templates and list pages - I'm not a roads specialist myself, just created A660 road because it's my local main road, and edited A58 road with which it intersects in Leeds. I included a link to the SABRE site as "External links" - would you accept that as sufficiently referenced? PamD 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG: I've just discovered that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Roads (newly renamed/merged from "UK Motorways" project, and I'm not sure that even that one has been around for long!). That would be an interesting place to discuss the whole issue of what constitutes good references for roads. I see they list SABRE as a resource. Cheers, PamD ( talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Royalty <> Nobility <> Peerage
Example is Robert Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe whose talk page includes WPBiography. There seem to be a large number of peers who are therefore nobility, whose nobility does not make them royalty. I think royalty-work-group needs to be re-jigged somehow. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) You might want to check this list of auto-tagging edits: quite a lot of false positives there. I have fixed a few, but there are many still to do. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing special. Just one thing: is there a way to make a navbox stick to the bottom of a talk page, like the box you have created for yours? I have developed a navbox for my user pages (to fit in with the main user page's "proper article" theme) and I want to add it to my talk page, but cannot find the way to avoid its going up with each new section. Can you help, please? Waltham, The Duke of 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Dan Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Hammer1980·
talk
01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Should be Deaths with .... Nobody dies from it. Some die from complications arising from it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for arbitration concerning the Geobox categories here. – Caroig ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be speedy tagging categories that have been empty for three days. The speedy template suggests that categories need to be empty for at least four days to qualify. I know this is a trivial difference, but perhaps we should wait one more day to ensure that nobody complains on a technicality. - Jehochman Talk 17:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really ... I've been doing that when I come across an empty cat which I know doesn't qualify for C1. I don't want to bother CFD with a bunch of empty categories, but at the same time I don't want to kill new ones. The result is that they stay in the orphanage until they become old enough to kill as C1. The real issue is that it's hard to know how long a cat has been empty ... it's obvious when it's new but often not otherwise. Usually I'll leave a note in the edit history that says something like Speedy delete Nov 30th, etc. -- Prove It (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you update the links from Gaelic Games to Gaelic games in {{ GaelicGamesdecade}} and its peers and {{ S-sports}} , Thanks Gnevin ( talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This falls fully under the heading of "you in no way have to".
I'd like to request that you nominate Category:Women by occupation and its subcats for discussion at CFD.
Yes, based on your previous comments, I will presume that as nominator this would be a nomination to "keep", but as the page is Categories for discussion, I don't see this as a problem at all.
I just feel that, as you appear to be the topic's main proponent, you would be the best to illustrate the reasons for keeping.
I only ask that you please consider this. - jc37 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you see this (in "constantly vandalised") - can it be speedied? Johnbod ( talk) 14:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Ok - done (was copy of entire G bush page if you didn't see) Johnbod ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a request for editing the protected template, {{ hndis}}, which you just edited. If you're still online, could you make the requested edit, please? It is widely used and quite broken right now. jwillbur 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading your reply to my comment on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_26#Category:People_with_ADHD I spent some time reading the policy pages related to categories and lists, but still don't feel that I have a good understanding of when categories vs lists vs nothing are most appropriate. You obviously know much more about this than I do since you are an administrator and active on the CfD page. Could you articulate for me in a little more detail why Category:People_by_medical_or_psychological_condition is not an appropriate category? -- Triggtay ( talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could share your thoughts in this discussion at WP:VPP on the issue of changing links-to-redirects-that-are-not-broken. I contributed one example of an edit for comment, and there was consensus that it was an unnecessary edit. I then went off in search of further examples for comment and found a similar sort of edit which happens to be by you. I mentioned it in discussion at WP:VPP. I put it forward as stimulus for further discussion, not as criticism of it. John Broughton suggested it could be the result of using popups with the option "Automatically fix links to bypass redirects and disambiguation pages" enabled. I'd appreciate hearing your views as an experienced editor. I am hoping to generate some discussion of the issue, and see if there is a consensus for clarifying certain aspects of the related guidelines. I look forward to hearing your thoughts over there. Thanks. - Neparis ( talk) 17:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, protecting a template after reverting it without any motivation whatsoever isn't particularly convincing. Indirectly describing my edits as vandalism also strikes me as being needlessly hostile.
Peter Isotalo 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Japanese citrus. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee t/ c 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, BHG, but how did you come across the category of Australia Club members in the first place? Where was it linked from that you stumbled upon it? As I said, I'm just curious. It always amazes me where I end up in terms of article obscurity when I'm reading articles. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a little advice on this please BHG two editors will not enter any discourse on the article I have put Citation tags in which keep getting removed and spurious refs inserted links to last fm and links to compilation cds to show this artist is signed to warner. I have checked amazon music to find out about this mans music nothing came up and also google all to little or no avail. Trying to imply that he is notable because he worked on remixes to famous artists, never worked actually as far as I can find with any of the artists mentioned. Thanks BigDunc ( talk) 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you noticed, as it was you who taught me this. While performing the merge of Dave Martin into David Martin, I piped every link through the text, "David Martin", believing I had seen this style elsewhere. Then I saw your edit comment on this same page from about a month ago. Not wanting to disappoint you, I unpiped all the links in the edit you saw. I would not have known the right way to do it without your help. Best regards, Hult041956 ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG - FYI, I drafted Occupations, gender roles, and women's history and will begin drafting relevant articles for individual occupations as appropriate. -- Lquilter ( talk) 14:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
While on the subject of original research and golden oldies, what think you of the 1897/1907 debate on Ruby Muhammad? I note that at least two websites, genarians.com and Dead or Alive info have already changed their information based on the Wikipedia entry. The German Wikipedia entry, meanwhile, has completely discarded the notion that she may have been born in 1897. When I brought up the World's Oldest People forum for debate as a reliable source, no one seemed to mind, so I left it as it was. Now that the debate has been revived, however, I thought I'd get your input. The only sources that claim the 1907 birth, at least one's that don't seem to be getting their info from Wikipedia, are Robert Young's site and Robert Young's fan site. Strikes me as very ORish, especially since someone pointed out that the evidence listing her as born in 1907 also lists her as being white (although I may have misinterpreted this, I'm no expert). Cheers, CP 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
E-mail from Robert Young. Reply to CP's paragraph.
1. How would CP know where NN&C gets their info from? That's an unproved assertion and should be disallowed.
2. The evidence from the 1910 census does NOT list Ruby as 'white'...FALSE. Any citations for that claim? However, I do seem to recall someone finding a 'Ruby' born in the 1890's that turned out to be 'white'. So, CP doesn't have his story straight.
3. The WOP is a 'private' group...well, I guess you could call Wikipedia a 'private' group...they don't let everyone in, do they?
4. Actually, the research was done by Filipe Prista Lucas.
Reply to BrownHairedGirl's paragraph.
Actually, if we go by 'verifiable sources'...the disparaging remarks made by BHG are 'unsourceable.' NO ONE outside of Wikipedia has challenged the reliability/believability of the data. The REAL irony is that BHG has concocted a fantasy world where she is 'right' based on faith-based original research, and where I am 'wrong' (even though I can source my statements, and she can't).
I'm probably the only 1 who notices this, but, the fact that Robert links to his WOP post as source/reference and blocks non-members (private) sort of makes it a good reason to sign up and join his group, right? Neal ( talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
I know you're on Wikibreak, but I'm just recovering from food poisoning and just got around to seeing this note. I'm a little bit sickened that I replied to him when he raised these questions with me privately, and yet here they are posted without my responses. I won't waste your time repeating my answers, especially since he wanted to "discuss central issues privately." What nonsense all of this is. Cheers, CP 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, BHG - I hope you will take a look at the analysis & comment I appended on the CFD for Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel in support of renaming to Category:Massacres of Arabs during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Regards, Cgingold 00:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a bit of advice on this Aatomic1 seems to have a thing about adding lists of dead and I dont want to get in to an Edit War thanks. BigDunc ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for your replies. I think that BigDunc hits the nail on the head when he asks whether "this list does not warrant a separate article". That's my reading of it: that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL means no separate article for the list, and no separate articles for individuals notable only for their tragic death ... but that it does not deprecate a short list of the dead in an article on the event itself.
I have been doing some further checks on other fires, (which has led me to start creating Category:Fires by year), and so far I have found New Cross Fire which does have a list and Bradford fire which doesn't. I'll do some further checking and draw up a longer list, but the New Cross Fire seems like an interesting comparison, because it was such a similar event (that similarity actually became part of the debate, because the black communities of South London were disgusted that the London media ran huge coverage of the Stardust fire, but very little of the disaster in their own city; the possibility of arson was also a contentious issue inn New Cross, albeit the other way round). I guess at one level we all have an interest in this one, because I think that most people in Ireland have strong feelings about the fire, but it's still a fair distance from the sorts of involvement defined in WP:COI. Maybe, though it does suggest that we will need someone from another continent to sort it out.
It seems to me that the mediation at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion is going absolutely nowhere, and has degenerated into an argument which only risks building more antagonism. I suggest that an RFC is appropriate. If you like, and if aatomic1 agrees, I'd happy to draft a summary of both sides views to launch the RFC. Obviously I will post it only if all involved agree that it's a fair summary of the situation. Would you like me to try? (No offence at all if you say no!) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, since there seems to be agreement for the idea from the main parties to the dispute, I'll try drafting something later today. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for all your help BigDunc ( talk) 12:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
Sorry BHG is this RfC going to deal with this article exclusively or is it going to take in to account Aatomic1's disregard for this process which is still on going and continued edit warring on Birmingham Pub Bombing article. BigDunc ( talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would prefare a WP:RFCC with good reason I think. The purpose of mediation is to help the parties involved reach an agreement. When the mediator has to revert an editor involved in the mediation twice you have to consider bad faith. Having had to be warned to revert the mediator is just to undermine their role. Edit warring only makes that task more difficult. All I want is reasoned discussion, and I don't think we have been getting that. -- Domer48 ( talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Coming way late to this party - I too would definitely welcome your drafting an RFC - and thanks for offering. As an aside - would it be possible to restore Dreamafter's mediation pages and put them somewhere accessible to all? I was gobsmacked to see he'd deleted everything relating to several months work by all sides. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG.. I wonder if, after your wikibreak, you would like to check out the situation at Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and its talk page? I am inexperienced in article writing and also with regards to situations like this, but the original author is hostile about any changes in his work on the article, calling those who would question the tone and the encyclopedishness of the article itself sockpuppets, malicious, malevolent or worse. I wonder if you would lend your considerable experience to this matter and perhaps help cool Zeng8r down? I have no idea how to talk to him, and perhaps you could offer more valuable advice or help reach a compromise, more than I ever could. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)