User talk:Canadian Paul/Birthday to Disillusionment

:)
Happy birthday Paul! Have a nice day. Kind regards and best wishes Doma-w (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Cheers, CP 16:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

why did u delete my page about me??????? stacey agbontaen is me, so why did u delete it? Lady19 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

List of African-American Supercentenarians?
I wonder if a list of "European-American" Supercentenarians would be allowed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_American_supercentenarians

Ryoung 122 11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's definitely something that requires a serious review and some commentary. I'll get to it tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired. Cheers, CP 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Moves
Hi Paul! Can you please help me to move the article of Elizabeth Davies to her common name "Valerie Davies"? Also I want to ask you what do you think about the title of this article (and the others of this series)? World record progression 1,000 m speed skating men Are the commas correct or not? Many thanks in advance Doma-w (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I have two more... Please help me with Cissie Stewart (swimmer) to "Cissie Stewart" there is no need for brackets. And Ben Howard Baker to "Howard Baker (sportsman)" ALL refs show his common name as "Howard Baker". Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Doma-w... I moved Valerie Davies and Cissie Stewart, but I think that you should talk with the person who moved Howard Baker (sportsman) in the first place and see what they think before I move it. They'll probably be okay with it if you make a simple case, but it's always good to ask. As for the comma thing, if all of them are like that, then that seems to be consensus (personally I was brought up to put a comma there, but that may be just be), so unless you can point out a specific guideline that says otherwise (and that may be the case), then it should stay. If there is a guideline, I will be happy to review it. Cheers, CP 04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Paul! The Barker article looks better now, one user added new refs and a comment on the talk page. I do not now why there where only three refs added which spelt the name not in the way like the title of the article... With the commas I am not sure, so I asked you for your opinion or if you know more. I only saw this: Manual of Style (dates and numbers). So I can use a comma for numbers lower than 10000, but I must use a comma for numbers greater than or equal to 10,000? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the case; if the consensus is to use the comma, then it should remain that way. Personally, I would too as I think that it looks better, but that's just my opinion. Cheers, CP 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

From davidsi444.
I'd be grateful for some advice on making my contribution to the Helen Forrester page usable. This was the first time I ever wrote anything for Wikipedia. I thought by explaining what was in her books I could whet people's appetites. I realise that my own reaction has been included. Could I edit what I have written to make it acceptable? I came across the first book of her autobiography during a Library clearout (Fill a bag for £1.50)I like reading social biographical history. I then bought the rest.

In the same bag I put a book by Margaret Penn. I have constructed a page about her because she does not feature in Wikipedia - at least I could not find her. I have tried to follow the pattern of a biographical page without opinion. Hopefully you will see it when I put it up and can run the blue pen through it if necessary

David Davidsi444 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David. The first problem is that the material that you added is completely unsourced. Per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, all potentially contestable material (of which all of the material that you added certainly was, as it expresses a very explicit point of view) must be sourced in third-party, reliable sources.


 * Sourcing issues aside, however, there are many problems with what you added that make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. First of all, what you wrote discusses the books in far too great of a detail for a page that is about the author. More importantly, however, it is written in an unencyclopedic tone; for example "There is no way the reader is going to put this book down". The statement does not convey neutral, factual information about the book as an encyclopedia would; it is an opinion, and a hyperbole at that. When writing about any topic on Wikipedia, it is necessary to let the facts speak for themselves. Instead of saying "it's a great book", for example, you might say "this book won such and such an award and got this rating in the New York review of books". Those are both factual pieces of information that convey "it's a great book" without forcing a subjective opinion upon the reader. You can also quote someone on the subject, but their salience to the topic must either be obvious or explained. For example, "Nobel laureate in literature Naguib Mahfouz said that this book was one of the great novels of our time" or "James McBond, an expert on Canadian literature, said that it was the quintessential Canadian novel" is fine so long as the quotes are sourced. "Don Everyman of the Washington Gazette said..." is not. In any case, even if this were an article about the book or a subsection in the author page, it would have to be completely rewritten to comply with the expected tone of Wikipedia.


 * I hope that this is clear; please let me know if there is anything else I can help with or clarify. Cheers, CP 02:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of African American supercentenarians
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of African American supercentenarians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of African American supercentenarians. Thank you. B.Wind (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it to AfD because I thought it needed a wider discussion as this is potentially very controversial. B.Wind (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought I'd try a PROD, since no one commented on the discussion page for over a week, but AfD is probably more appropriate anyhow. Cheers, CP 21:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Marjorie Linton
Hi Paul,

In case you haven't come across it already, I found a reference to Marjorie Linton at the Hamilton Empire Games. She was apparently 13 as at August 1930. It might help in tracking down her DoB and whether she is still alive. Cheers, 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone already took it and ran with it before I could even get to it! Anyhow, great research... it ended up solving the case! Cheers, CP 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that can't be right... if she was born in September 1918, then she would have only been 11 in August 1930... ah well, at least we have an approximate year of birth now! Cheers, CP 00:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Crystalis
Crystalis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. ''I've notified you since I noticed you were involved in editing the article since its Good Article promotion. Thank you,'' MuZemike 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I'm checking it out as we type. Cheers, CP 15:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Willson
Hi, Dave's obituary has yet to be published — when it is, I will cite the BBC staff newspaper Ariel — Thanks...Zir (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've transferred your comments to his talk page...Zir (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Cheers, CP 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves
Hi Paul! Can you please help me? I would like to bring the British Empire Games/Commonwealth Games categories in line, but I do not know how to do this... What do you think about the following cats:


 * Category:Athletes at the 1954 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Athletes at the 1958 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1958 British Empire and Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Athletes at the 1962 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Athletes at the 1966 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Cyclists at the 1966 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Cyclists at the 1966 British Empire and Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Athletes at the 1970 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1970 British Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Cyclists at the 1970 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Cyclists at the 1970 British Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Athletes at the 1974 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Athletes at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games
 * Category:Cyclists at the 1974 Commonwealth Games moved to Category:Cyclists at the 1974 British Commonwealth Games

I think it is necessary to move them to match these cats with the main cats? Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Paul! I have added them here Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 15. I hope I have done this correctly? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what can be done if nobody is interested? Thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If no one else comments, an administrator should decide in due time that the changes are uncontroversial and make the moves. Let me know if it gets closed without any action. Cheers, CP 15:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, so this will also be closed. Sorry I am not familar with. Many thanks! Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The moves were successful! Thanks again for your help. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate article
Greetings,

Could you delete this duplicate article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Werner_Schaie

The correct version is "K. Warner Schaie."

Ryoung 122 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Cheers, CP 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (NES) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. ''I just noticed that this is the second GA that I am reassessing that you have originally brought up to GA. Note that I am not trying to go after you or hound or anything like that, but like the previous GAR, it's basically the case of a GA that no longer meets the criteria because of the higher standards now for GAs. So I apologize in advance.'' MuZemike 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sonia Darrin
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sonia Darrin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Sonia Darrin. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new policy
As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:
 * A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.
 * A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009. Don't just say or Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support.
 * Oppose.

South African Olympians
Have you seen this? It lists all South African Olympians as at 7 July 2004 with DoB and DoD. They don't have DoDs for Marjorie Clark or Jenny Maakal. Cheers, 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen that before, that's quite interesting. It seems fairly incomplete though; there's several people born in the 1800s, who must certainly be deceased by now, but have no DOD. I definitely think that there's still a chance that Jenny Maakal is still alive though. Marjorie Clark, not so much, the available evidence is weighted heavily against her favour. I'll have to look to see if I can update my list with this information though. Thanks! Cheers, CP 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page
Thanks for the message. I've replied at my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"I don't do citations"
CP, if you really are interested in improving Wikipedia and not conducting a personal vendetta against me, then you need to consider that you are posting items OUT OF CONTEXT.

I clearly stated on the talk page that I believed in citations but wasn't very good at the intricate/metronomic task of adding them, so I would post citable sources on the talk page and let someone else do it...someone like Bart Versieck...who, by the way, hasn't returned to Wikipedia since December 8, 2008. He told me that you were the reason. Ryoung 122 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppet accusation
CP, I clearly stated that I did NOT accuse you of what you say I did. You cannot find anywhere on Wikipedia where I said what you claim I accused you of: that you "recruited a " (if I said "meatpuppet" would you quote that out of context)? Rather, I accused a new editor, whose account did not exist before the discusion began, of editing in a way that appeared to be meatpuppetry. That is true, and the actions ceased. Therefore, there was no need to take this to another level. Further, your understanding of "meatpuppetry" is NOT reflected in the Wiki policies on meatpuppetry. You could have a meatpuppet recruited by proxy, or even one that is simply a volunteer. For example, in the 2007 disputes editors such as Kitia and Robert Waalk came out of nowhere to support me, yet I had never asked them to. Ryoung 122 23:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay. I forgive you Robert. Cheers, CP 15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That might be the most prescient thing you've ever said to me. Sometimes I can be rebarbative but I'm not intentionally so. Ryoung 122 09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
CP, I am absolutely new at this. I want to edit a stub which contains an error in the very first sentence. I am ready with my material. So I plan to just replace the entire first section and add more sections. I just printed "how to edit a page" and a couple other sections to study. But I need a little encouragement. Should I just go at it and not worry about the consequences of an inadequate grasp of the markup language? Does the new stuff patrol fix what they do not delete? Vocalmusicpa (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to Vivian Della Chiesa? If so, you seem to have gotten the hang of it... there's a few things I would clean up about it if I had the time, but certainly the fact that it is so nicely referenced puts it head and shoulders above many, many other articles. Cheers, CP 15:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another 90+ Olympian for the list
http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/blog/ Topcardi (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Gabre Gabric-Calvesi. 71.42.216.98 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert Young (USA) athletics (living in California) and René Sparenberg (NED) field hockey (Living in Florida) are still alive. Gh (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -December 2008 magazine page 4 proves Eva Dawes still alive. Topcardi (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. It seems someone else has taken the liberty to update my Olympics page with all this new information. There's no question that Dawes was alive as of December 2008 then... maybe she was left off the official Canadian count because she lives in England?

Anyhow, according to this article, Percy Oliver is Western Australia's oldest Olympic competitor, but that doesn't help prove anyone currently on my Olympics page is deceased. This article, on the other hand, is far more useful, since it claims that Britain's oldest Olympic participant, before he died was born on February 7, 1913, meaning that all individuals born before him are deceased - that would eliminate 18 names from the list, probably the biggest removal yet.

One, however, I am hesitant to remove. The deaths of both Harry Hill (cyclist) and Peter Ward (athlete) both suggested that Godfrey Rampling is deceased. I think if there's no mention of his 100th birthday when the time comes, we'll at least have to move him to "possibly living people"... Cheers, CP 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Godfrey Rampling is alive and living in a retirement home although in poor health. Gh (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Simone Schaller, who was fourth in 80 m hurdles in 1932 is still alive and is living in Arcadia, California. http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/sc/simone-schaller-1.html Gh (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell Allen, US cyclist who competed at 1932 is still alive and living in Topanga, California. http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/al/russell-allen-1.html Gh (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mary Bird, USA alpine skiing is still alive and living in Lakeville, Connecticut. http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/bi/mary-bird-1.html Gh (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Cutler, USA rowing 1936 is still alive and living om Peabody, Massachusetts. http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/cu/bob-cutler-1.html Gh (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

After Hans Kleppen
Hi Paul,

The oldest living (or at least not confirmed as deceased) Norwegian Olympians I have found are:
 * Female: Johanne Dybwad wiki has 14 August 1920 but sports-reference has 22 October 1918
 * Male: Ivar Iversen 24 August 1914

There seem to be a few other males at 90+ still alive who are not on your list; when I have time I will add them in if they still need to be (must get back to work!).

Cheers, 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a published source yet claiming that Kleppen is dead. Cheers, CP 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Longevity myths vs. Longevity narratives
CP, this is to me a major issue and I would like to discuss this further. JJButen has already admitted, in many ways, that his interest in these articles are primarily due to religious interest. Let's get to the CORE issue first. What is JJ Buten's problem with using the word used by scientists in the literature?


 * 1) "Myth" is an offensive word to many, even when used formally by sociologists to describe lore with adherents in the billions. All monotheistic faiths contain large components that hold that Abraham lived to 175 and Sarah to 127.

So he has a problem with using the word "myth" even scientifically, when Wiki-policy on use of the word "myth" states that use in a formal sense is acceptable

To me, this argument is like insisting that public schools teach "creationism" to balance out evolution. First of all, you can teach anything you want...in private school. But public schools should teach what is based on science.

As for this issue: Wikipedia is a public forum, not a government one. However, I would tend to think that Wiki policies give credence more to science and less to religion. If JJ Buten is offended, he can go read about Methuselah at places like this:

http://www.biblequestions.org/Archives/BQAR235.htm

In fact, I HAVE tried to be charitable. We can start with that I created the "longevity claims" article when Marxists argued that calling Benito Martinez of Cuba, "126," a myth. In reality, there is a myth of longevity in Cuba that is ideologically based (the idea that Marxism=better than capitalism, so people live longer) but the age claim of "126" is just four years past Jeanne Calment's...so we can't say for sure that his age was impossible. However, claims to "950" are so far-fetched that the Bible itself shortens its numbers in four successive waves, with maximum lifespan limits of 1000, 500, 250, and then 120 years.

There is a problem with "longevity narrative." First of all, it is not used in the scientific literature, and secondly a Google search turned up uses by quack sites (selling Gogi berries in Tibet) and the like. Of course they don't like the idea that their false reports are being properly labelled as such. The Google search test was completely irrelevant, as most of the initial hits were false, or they were Wiki-mirrors (based on editors' self-changes). In fact, JJ Buten shamefully argues that the article was inconsistent in its headings, when most of the inconsistencies, including the introductory lines, were in fact put there by him. Ryoung 122 08:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, part 2:

As much as you may not like me, or vice versa, I do respect your efforts to attempt to keep a high standard on Wikipedia. To me, the biggest problem on Wikipedia is that since "anyone can edit," often decisions come down to who has more time on their hands.

To be more specific, JJ Buten has made several (many) comments which are unscientific. He is editing using a "Biblical lens." For example, this edit here:

"according to modern standards"

He has basically come out and said his problem is that he believes the ages in the Bible are literally correct. Even more than that, on articles such as Micajah Weiss his editing has centered around "IMHO"...guess what? This isn't about what JJ Buten thinks...it's about what outside, reliable/verifiable sources think. Ryoung 122 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, sorry to run in, but I wanted to make sure this page did not suffer from uncorrected mistakes. Please continue centralized discussion at Talk:Longevity narratives or whatever we call it when you get this. Corrections follow:


 * My name is "Bulten", it's not often that someone who claims to be good at data collection misspells it 6 times.
 * I did not admit anything "in many ways", I said once (as you saw), "I am primarily interested in Biblical longevity, but seek to weight this coverage properly with other traditions" (a comment interrupted twice by Ryoung and reinterpreted above).


 * there were several other assertions of religious interest, including the claim that calling Abraham's age of "175" a myth was "offensive." Yet this wasn't meant to be an article on the Bible, it was an article on how past mythology tended to support extreme age claims, while modern scientific literature (which requires replicable proof) does not. Ryoung 122 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with using the word "myth" scientifically, but the article has no sociological or mythological reference material whatsoever as required by WP:WTA for such scientific use to be unambiguous. It is a collection of categories that appear nowhere else in any independent literature, it appears to me.
 * The repeated implication that I am offended is WP:OR. Ryoung himself cites WP:AGF, which is applicable here.
 * Claims that "950" is far-fetched and that this causes the Bible's plateaus are totally unsourced WP:OR, although I guess you could source it to Robert Young's 2008 thesis, in which case it would fail WP:SPS.


 * In yet another example of JJ Bulten misunderstanding Wikipolicy, my thesis was published by Georgia State University and also later again by a third-party publishing company. As such, it is NOT a "self-published source." It is NOT on a website that I funded. I do not fund or own the GSU website. Ryoung 122 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of no scientific paper stating that human ages of 950, thousands of years ago, are totally foreclosed; science does not comment on myth or narrative, but on present observation.


 * There are plenty to choose from. Please try again. Ryoung 122 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The implication that the scientific literature does not use the word "narrative" fails to contextualize the apparent fact that the topic of categorizing historical extreme age claims is unknown to scientific literature.


 * Correction: "unknown" to you. I have begun posting relevant, scientific journal entries on the longevity myths page. Ryoung 122 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The implication that Google search was held to be useful at all does not align with my comment, which merely said that "unscientific Google ... favors 'longevity stories'" and did not attribute any reliability to the sites he excoriates at length.
 * The comment "Wiki-mirrors (based on editors' self-changes)" seems to have no referent other than to the fact that within the past 24 hours I started moving to "narrative" per consensus, but that would not make the sentence sensible because Google doesn't mirror anything that fast.


 * It doesn't have to be by you. Every "narrative" citation came from a mirror website which copied original research from Wikipedia. I see not one scientific article that uses these phrases. Ryoung 122 22:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. JJB 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was inconsistent when I found it, and I alluded to the use of the four words myth-narrative-story-tale, unbalancedly, in the third sentence of this lead, which I certainly did not introduce and which looks like a longtime past error of this article.
 * Characterizing my edits as "unscientific" and "Biblical lens" for the use of my qualifier "according to modern standards" hardly needs comment. Even Thoms didn't use modern standards. Ditto my use of "IMHO" in an edit summary.
 * The statement "He has basically come out and said his problem is that he believes the ages in the Bible are literally correct" is unsourced WP:OR.


 * Please try and keep all this on the article talk page from now on. I still support the name change from longevity myths to longevity narratives. I really don't care about the ideological implications of the name change, just Wikipedia policy, and I only see one of the two of you invoking it. If something cannot be hashed out soon, you might seek an uninvolved third-party solution to resolve the dispute and help build consensus. Cheers, CP 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regardless of what you intended to mean by the above comment, I am invoking Wiki policy, NOT JJ Bulten. The wiki policies of "No original research," "reliable sources," and "verifiability" all support the use of the term longevity myth, not the alternatives which are NOT citable in the outside literature but a mere invention by activist Wikipedians who have turned Wikipedia into a place to evolve debate, rather than adhere to the stated mission of Wikipedia being an "encyclopedia" that cites reliable, third-party, neutral outside sources. Ryoung 122 22:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Longevity folklore
Please comment about the compromise title longevity folklore (for the longevity myths or longevity narratives article), at Talk:Longevity narratives. This message is being copied to 4 people. Thank you. JJB 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Would it be possible for you to conclude your reviews for Shia LaBeouf (found here) and Stephen Colbert (found here)? They have been open for a little over a year now, and probably don't need too much more to be completed. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am no longer part of the GA process. You are welcome to close them as you see fit. Cheers, CP 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I will include them back into the general list for others to review. Best wishes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page discussion
Hi CP. Would you be able to help out with discussing and explaining what happened here? I removed some fact-tagged and unsourced text from the article in question, and I've notified the editor who originally added the material, and the later editor who later commented out the text and started discussion on that talk page (though that latter editor hasn't edited in many months). I'm contacting you because you fact-tagged it. You were quite right to fact-tag it (though removing it altogether might have been better). My concern here that the editor who originally added the material, later restored it by removing the commenting out tags. Would you be able to take part in the discussion and keep an eye on things? My views on how the article should be expanded are at the article talk page. I'm now going to try and find an obituary to help expand that article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Australian Olympian
Bill Roycroft: 17 March 1915

Second oldest Basil Dickinson: 25 April 1915

From this http://news.theage.com.au/sport/australias-oldest-olympian-dies-at-95-20080213-1s1r.html

Cheers, 02:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up! I'll be away on vacation for the next 2-3 days, so I hope I don't miss any of the "recent changes" to my Nonagenarian or Olympics pages! Cheers, CP 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly living people
Hi, you changed the category on this from Possibly living to Living people, which is correct according to the general definition. However, the reason I put him under Possibly living is that that I'm pretty well certain he died 5-6 years ago but at the moment have no reliable published source for the "fact". In such circumstances, should I have followed the standard definition regardless and categorised him as Living? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Struway2. Generally, to be on the safe side, we keep people under 90 in "Living people" (unless there's some special circumstance like disappearance etc.) so that people who watch for WP:BLP violations can easier detect violations (for example, if an IP address removes the living people category, the edit is always flagged). Unless there's a source that hints that he'd dead or deceased, it's probably best to keep him in living people under 90. In this case, however, since he is fairly close to the cut-off point (I see a lot of 50-60 year old players in that category which is entirely inappropriate), since there's been no activity in 40+ years and since you put out a justification for the category, I wouldn't be opposed and wouldn't revert if you feel that "Possibly living people" is more appropriate, since that does offer some level of protection still. Others, however, may disagree, and may change it back. Thanks for the message! Cheers, CP 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Pola Illery
With all due respect, CP, that site is NOT a reliable source. The guy that runs it usually just adds names to the "living silent film actors" list based on lone birth dates on IMDb, infact IMDb is the only source he provides for her! The source also lists living silent film actors who are DEFINITELY known to be deceased! Asides from that there is NOTHING on the net to suggest she is living. I would've expected a 100th birthday article, considering she was once quite a prominent actress. Please get back to me with your thoughts, Cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I can agree with that. I'll bring it up next time I log in, cheers --Jkaharper (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Anatole Vologe
From this link it appears he was killed during WWII (28 May 1944). The google translation isn't the best and my French is no help! He is the only Olympian born in late 1908/early 1909 that I have found any link for, nothing suggesting a 100th birthday for anyone else except Godfrey Rampling.

http://lyonzinho.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

Cheers, 05:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a great find! The link does indeed indicate that he was killed on that day... between the translation and my knowledge of French!


 * And yeah, I suspect that most, if not all, of those athletes who are 100+ with no D.O.D. on my Olympics page are dead... Cheers, CP 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if a blog is a reliable enough source to change the page though... maybe you should submit it to the Sports Reference site and, when they update it, that'll be sufficient. Cheers, CP 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! 05:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

His French wiki article has the same info as from the blog link (which I added to that page as there were no other references; someone in French wiki may be able to find the original source). His categories include 1944 deaths. Cheers, 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead an updated it. I think we have more than enough evidence now. Cheers, CP 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Blp=no
Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to make a short comment. When a person is dead then living should be set to "no" and blp has to be removed. Keep editing! Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't know that! Thanks for the FYI - I'll be sure to do that from now on! Cheers, CP 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Last living competitor from Lake Placid 1932"?
This page says "[ Cecilia Colledge was]...the last living competitor from the 1932 Olympic Winter Games, according to Liz DeFazio, director of the 1932 & 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympic Museum." Perhaps they have not included the demonstration sports which is why they haven't counted Dorothy Franey (still alive as at Jan/Feb this year according to this)? Cheers, 07:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a great find! That's 15 individuals that I can cross off my Olympics list! Thanks so much! Also, I noticed the problem with List of living supercentenarians and I'm going to semi-protect the page right away. Cheers, CP 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Pool of Radiance.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Pool of Radiance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Living Supercentenarians
The vandal has returned, I'm afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistachio disguisey (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Moore (DJ) Page
I lived with Chris Moore for several years in the early '70s we travelled together quite a bit and I remember his (U.S. issued) passort had his date of birth as 16th April 1940 (not 1941 as you have edited on his wikipedia page.) I suspect your source was making a rough guess at his age! --SeaFern (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect so as well! Thanks for the heads up! Cheers, CP 02:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Butterfield
Hi Canadian Paul, I didn't even know that Frederick Butterfield had an article. Captian Celery started the article I believe. But thank you for thinking of me. Plyjacks (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll Love to Delete This
CP,

Someone created a list of supercentenarians from the "Americas" (as in North and South, combined):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Americas

Not only that, someone has been adding redirects for people like Olivia Patricia Thomas to this page (when instead they should go to "List of supercentenarians from the United States").

I propose we delete this REDUNDANT list. Someone made one for "Europe" but that's one continent, not two. Ryoung 122 06:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno. If List of the verified oldest women wasn't deleted because of massive overlap, I don't think that this one will be either. I mean, I agree and would support it if someone else nominated it for deletion, but I wouldn't waste my time nominating it. Plus theoretically it could include people from South America and Mexico like María Capovilla or that Columbian fellow (which I don't think necessitates another list personally, but apparently something small like that was enough to keep the verified women...).Cheers, CP 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Bonei Olam
Hi, I've created an article about a prestigious jewish non-profit organization that is world famous and extremely popular in the ultra-orthodox jewish community. I value that you try keeping Wiki the way it is supposed to be; without spam etc. Howeever I believe that this organization deserves to be on Wikipedia just as every other Humanitarian organization that exists. I know that much info is still missing, but that precisely is the reason why I put it as a stub. I also believe that this goes into the category of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. So if you can just put it back with a speedy deletion notice, so I can challenge it with reason on the talk page, I'd really appriciate it. Thanks in advance. GeredtErnst (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeredtErnst (talk • contribs)


 * Hi GeredtErnest. Generally we don't accept articles in the article mainspace until they have properly asserted notability and met the guidelines at WP:N and I agreed with the person who first tagged the article that this was not present at the time (as it was basically only a description of the organization). If you would like, I can restore the article into your user space so that you can work on it to establish notability, which can later be moved to the mainspace. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks and Cheers, CP 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivanov's death
Regarding this edit and your associated comment, "Possibly living people is generally only for 90+".

Is there any particular reason your didn't change the category to Category:Disappeared people? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something but I didn't see anything in the article about him becoming "disappeared". Seems like he worked in Australia and was later expelled. This article for example, suggests that he might be still be working for the Russian government, which made me think that living was more appropriate than "disappeared". That's just my opinion though; I wouldn't be particularly interested in changing him out of Disappeared people. Cheers, CP 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Fair enough. I had previously skimmed that article and thought it inconclusive, but on re-reading "He looks older, of course, but the physical similarity is unmistakable", that is not an "inconclusive" remark! Thanks for that. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)