User talk:Canadian Paul/Canada Day to Birthday

Happy Canada Day Paul
🇨🇦 Where I'm at It's still July 1st for 40 min. Being from Minnesota, I have your country to thank for Justin Morneau. Regards. --Npnunda (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Keep up the good work! Cheers, CP 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

George "Dusty" Rhodes
I'm confused. G3 says "blatant misinformation" is speediable, yet WP:HOAX seems to contradict that. I say if it's clearly a hoax, burn it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Still Living
Mary Lou Petty-Skok Stan Cox Mary Glen-Haig Cheers, Topcardi (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe LysakTopcardi (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks! I'll try and give them articles a little later today. Cheers, CP 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My Internet is on/off here, so I'm waiting until early August so that I create proper pages for these individuals, instead of just stubs. Thanks for the suggestions! Cheers, CP 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Petty-Skok and Lysak done, hopefully the other two will be done by tomorrow. Cheers, CP 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While researching Glen-Haig, I found another: Roy Romain . Cheers, CP 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All done! Thanks for the suggestions! Links: Mary Lou Petty, Stan Cox, Mary Glen-Haig, John Lysak and Roy Romain. Cheers, CP 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Great work! There's one other I'm not sure about, Sarah Stewart now Cissie Hunt. Still alive in 2005 and nothing to prove that she isn't still alive today. Topcardi (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall looking at that case and somehow being convinced that she was deceased, but I can't recall why, and she has been listed as "date of death unknown" since the article's creation. Maybe User:Gh knows? I will leave a note on his talk page. If there's not a satisfactory answer, and she was alive as recently as 2005, then she should be placed back in the living category and added to my list. Cheers, CP


 * And another... Alice Arden (now Hodge). Topcardi (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks! Could probably be expanded later, but this should be good enough for a DYK hopefully... Link: Alice Arden (athlete) Cheers, CP 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bart....
Hello CP. I'm a little concerned about your recent block of Bart Versieck. I've got a few problems with it - firstly, the comment wasn't really that incivil, I would say it's far from blockable in fact. A simple word of warning would have been sufficient. Also, looking at his block log, I think you're far too involved to be making blocks against Bart now - it looks abvious to me that you have serious issues with him, and I don't think your neutral enough to be taking admin actions against him, especially when it's you who he's in dispute with. Please think about removing the block and recusing yourself from further actions against this user.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were purposely abusing your tools, but you seem to have clouded judgement with this guy (i.e. you have a problem with him) which makes any blocking you do look some what biased. Yup, I saw the edits you cited later, but the guy served his time for them (blocked for 24 hours by the looks of things), and I repeat, they weren't that bad, certainly not block worthy. Blocking for perceived incivility against yourself isn't good at all, especially when the "attacks" are very tame.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I need so help due to possible Vandalism.
HI User:Amerique is putting false info. on my page saying I am a sock puppet of a so called House see my page and can you help me? Please do a user cheak, because I am not a sockpuppet, I only a control freak I dont like vandalism. MountCan (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this one seems to have resolved itself. Cheers, CP 02:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Daddy Dewdrop
No, I can't. I have no indication that he is still alive, however, and I don't put people in categories that may in fact be false, even where it is policy. You can do as you wish. Chubbles (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V is clear: verifiability, not truth, is the threshold and WP:BLP is of paramount priority. Cheers, CP 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as an unofficial search, the SSDI lists no "Richard Monda" born in 1952 and deceased. While this is by no means definitive, it does make the edit summary "He is not definitely living" a tad disingenuous. Cheers, CP 20:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, he is not verifiably alive either. WP:V doesn't really apply, here, and I would prefer that Wikpiedia be silent rather than wrong. Chubbles (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a way around this... if his whereabouts are truly unknown, as in he made a reasonable effort to leave the public eye (as opposed to having just dropped off the radar because the media stopped covering him), then he can be placed in PLP regardless of his age. If you think that's what happened, then I can support him being placed back in Category:Possibly living people. But he can't be removed from categorization altogether. Cheers, CP 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter that much. It's your baby, do as you wish. Chubbles (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to make an amiable compromise. Cheers, CP 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine, it's just that this isn't really something I wanted to spend a lot of time on, researching and such. Cheers Chubbles (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Power of Omens
Thanks for the notification - some take it to heart when their articles are deleted, as you might know. I don't feel the article, in its current state, asserts notability, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Stewart
As there has been no word about her since 2005 I think she is dead. I think that being second oldest British Olympic medalist behind Godfrey Rampling, would produce some news about her, but there's nothing. Gh (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rena Mero
Hello, I just joined the GA sweeps project and was looking through the project's page. I noticed that you did the sweep for Rena Mero. The reassessment has been on hold since January, and all of the issues seem to have been addressed. Since I am involved with WP:PW, I was wondering if it would be possible to make a final decision on the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Vicente Valdero
According to the article, he was born in 1905. I'd be very surprised if he was still alive without it being known! Katharineamy (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Armen Vardanyan
Both Armen (unlike the German Armin) and Vardan (meaning 'giver of roses' in Armenian) are very common Armenian names. The 'ian' and 'yan' suffix, meaning 'son of', is ubiquitous among Armenian surnames (see Category:Armenian people ). Since he is not well known, a naive google search does not yield any corroborating biographical data; a cross search of '"Armen Vardanyan" armenia' just yields other Armenians with the same name. If you do not find this satisfactory, feel free to revert. --Wherewithal (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa and Maggie's bro...
Thanks for your message at my talkpage. I note that the wording of that section refers to banned editors, while Ryoung122 (who I have also had dealings with...) is only indef blocked I believe. I will have a look over at Bart's page to see what the diffs reveal, but if this is posting on behalf of a blocked account it may be best to post to an admin board to get a full range of opinions before considering any options. I am, however, that Bart again promises not to do something and then goes of and does it (if this is what transpired). I'll be back to you shortly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No: I did not break any rules. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any agreement not to make such edits - or that it had taken place, but an agreement that it would be unwise to do so pending a possible return by Ryoung122. If there are diffs for discussions outside of Barts talkpage which clarify that matter, then I would like to see them. If not, I think a post to ANI is the best procedure; we need to clarify that posting on behalf of indef blocked accounts is covered by the wording that mentions banned editors, and we need to find out what the state of play regarding Ryoung122 is - are they coming back or staying indef blocked or now consider banned. We also need to get consensus that such proxying has happened. If the answers, in the above order, are; yes, indef/banned, and yes again, then it would be the community to decide what sanctions if any are to be taken. If it is yes, however Ryoung122 is to be allowed to be returned soon, and yes, then the community can decide what they want to do with Bart (short block, or warning, or nothing), and if any other variant then it is a case of "carry on". I would also suggest that any post to ANI is only in respect of the "proxying" concern, and nothing about any other recent matter. I would prefer that Bart agrees to this, but ultimately this is not for you (CP) and I to agree upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to state again that I really did nothing wrong. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From Dusk till Dawn. Cheers, CP 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it is the borderline infractions that need community input - the obvious stuff is what the mop is there for! However, AGF and stuff means that we don't have to go that way if it is felt that it was an isolated incident - but it is an option if there are further differing opinions between Bart and other editors over the same matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, but what's got that particular movie to do with it, please? Extremely sexy (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no point in doing something that results in you not enjoying the overall experience of editing WP - mentors are volunteers like all other good faith editors. If it hasn't already been placed on the noticeboard (I haven't looked), I suggest you place it in terms of you not being prepared to continue the mentoring, why you cannot continue, and requesting what should now be done to deal with BV. Suggesting a banning is possibly going to lead to people opposing, but not being prepared to be part of the solution. Let the community decide on how to proceed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC) ps. I think you have done a great job, and I can see how frustrating it can be and have every sympathy in your not being prepared to expend the effort any longer.
 * Still no clue what that movie reference is. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pierre Picault
Hi I extended your AfD nomination of Pierre Picault by Fernand Goux. It is strongly releated, created by the same user, and has the same assertion of notability. I hope you don't mind. Cheers, Amalthea Talk 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mind at all and agree completely. There are a couple minor differences between the two individuals, but hopefully people will see the bigger picture (ie. no substantial coverage on either) on this one. Cheers, CP 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Haiti medalists
Hi. Regarding who were the medal winners for Haiti in 1924, I checked my sources with the IOC database, since it is the official source. I do not know what constitutes the difference, but I think databaseOlympics often omits reserves from their database. For example, according to them, Michael Phelps only won seven medals in Athens. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Major upsets
This is an issue surrounding the whole page; you can argue that the very title "highlights of the 2008 Olympics" implies some form of value judgement. Someone has to decide what counts as a highlight or not, after all. In the specific case of the women's high jump, the facts do speak for themselves; stopping a winning run of 38 competitions is by any measure a major upset. I've now edited the item to mention this. If you still disagree, feel free to bring it up on the article talk page. -- Hongooi (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an issue with the entire page, I agree. Anyhow, I think that I will bring it up on the talk page. Cheers, CP 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anicuta Butariu is back
Greetings,

Someone has recreated this deleted article again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ani%C5%A3ica_Butariu

At least they added ONE source this time...but the focus seems to be on statistics, which are already on the list pages, so what is the point here? Ryoung122 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tagged for speedy deletion, thanks Robert! By the way, I noticed on the image page for Moses Hardy that you claim to have taken the picture yourself. If so, would you be inclined to upload it is a freely licensed picture? If I am not mistaken, all the legal details are available on the image upload template page. Cheers, CP 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The photo, which I took in November 2004, was uploaded to the GRG website, and copied from there (not sure who...maybe JDCooper?). I don't have a problem with Wikipedia using it under a "free use" rationale, but I don't want to give away all rights. Even though Mr Hardy's collar wasn't in proper position, I think the photo did capture the essence of the man.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you still about?
I missed your comment at my talkpage, what with all the excitement, and note you have not edited since about half an hour after contacting me. Is things okay, taking a breather, or just not inclined to edit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool (or not, as it may be in your case). The appropriate venue would be WP:AN, since it is not an incident that needs swift intervention but consideration by experienced editors. Drop me a line when it goes live, and of course notify Bart. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted there. I included a quick history/review from my perspective. I am going to stay neutral for the reasons given there. If Bart is reading this, I am also prepared to do some "character witness" stuff if you feel it may help (but I will not shy away from your annoying habits). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find it over there at all. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Plyjacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kgcodyjam

Actually I just found out today that Plyjacks had THAT many sockpuppets, although RubyRox1907 wasn't hard to figure out.

Why am I turning this in? Because if someone is going to be surreptitious, don't make it so obvious. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies? Ryoung122 07:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report Robert. Though I'm 99.9% sure that it is Plyjacks, Cromwell's rule means that I will submit a report to WP:SSP later this afternoon when I have a little extra time. Cheers, CP 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. See Suspected sock puppets/Plyjacks (2nd). Cheers, CP 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He has confessed:

Yep that was me It is me Robert and I don't want to get banned again. I just want a second chance. But thanks for understanding me. I know I can trust you and I always will. Kgcodyjam (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung122 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Dividing theCategory: Supercentenarians
Greetings,

First I'd like to mention that the principle of age verification of extreme age claims dates to the 1870s, long before I was born. The main principle is that standards of documentation are needed, given the human tendency to inflate ages at the high end of the age spectrum. Note in England, for example, age claims to 207, 169, 152, 140, etc were common in the 1500s-1600s. Since 1837, however, when birth registration was compulsory, no one in England has lived past 115 years.

The bottom line is that no real supercentenarian has ever outlived every claim out there. In addition, what if we awarded Olympic medals simply based on "talk"? All someone has to do is say "I am the best" and they get the medal? Woah, that would be a lot of medals.

In the case of supercentenarians, scientists have attempted to control for age inflation by dividing cases into verified and unverified sections. This has been scientific policy for 130+ years. Wikipedia should reflect this. Therefore, I have suggested to divide the "supercentenarians" category into "verified" and "unverified". It is true that for SOME unverified claims, the person really is 110 or older, even if not exactly the age claimed. For example, we can conclude that Virginia Call is at least 110 (the 1910 census lists her as 12 years old) even though the family claims she is 114. This would be different from the more outlandish "longevity claims" (generally 115-130) or "longevity myths" (claims to 131+ or disproven cases). Ryoung122 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If we use the same formula that we did on List of living supercentenarians and make positively ZERO exceptions, no matter how true or false we believe the case to be, then maybe. A category scheme like that, however, might run into a whole host of problems that an article wouldn't have. Let me put it this way: I won't try and stop you from doing it, that's for sure. Cheers, CP 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have started. Basically a case is verified if it is listed on a list such as:

http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html (run by my competitor, Louis Epstein),

the GRG lists, or Guinness World Records. I suggest a few things:

A. "Unverified" supercentenarians should be limited to ages 110-114, and to those younger than the official world's oldest person. In other words, no official judgment has yet been made for many of the just-over-110 cases. In time, it will become evident which cases will not be accepted. If someone cannot produce evidence of their birth within a four-year window of opportunity, and they are claiming to be older than the world's oldest person but not recognized as such, then it seems reasonable to categorize them as a "longevity claim," prima facie. Remember, if a case is proven false it becomes a "longevity myth." So if the newspaper runs a story in 2009 that says that Ruby Muhammad is only 102, not 112, then it may be time for a reassessment. Remember, this case gained currency on the false notion that she was the widow of Elijah Muhammad, something that proved to be untrue.

B. As you mention, they should be limited to those which meet certain criteria, such as a stated date of birth, and from those nations with a history of developed records. Ryoung122 10:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

question...
I am curious, have you ever considered that there might be value in raising your concerns about articles you think merit deletion on their talk page -- instead of immediately nominating them for deletion?

I noted, in my reply to your afd of Ezatullah (Sorubi), that you assumed he was the same individual who served as Governor of Sangin District, when we have zero references to back up that speculation. Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience, discussion leads to stagnation almost all the time and boldness leads to improvement; either way, this article will be deleted or improved to prove me wrong, and I'm content with either result.


 * I had considered that they were different people, but I also considered that it was pretty much a trap no matter which way I took it. Both articles specifically mention that he goes by only one name; I therefore made the reasonable assumption that he might have moved somewhere else in the country over the span of six years. There are many Fabios, but the one who goes solely by Fabio distinguishes himself as a unique individual. So it is, I believe, in this case, where the specific focus on the sole name in addition to the nature of their job makes it reasonable to assume that they are, in fact, the same person. Had I suggested that they weren't the same person, there would have been equal fault in trying to discredit a source without solid evidence to do so. I chose the wrong that at least kept the discussion focused on the policies rather than the sources; whether they are the same person or not is irrelevant to my argument because, in either case, I do not feel that they meet the notability criterion.


 * I will respond to the discussion relevant to my argument at my page. Also, I ask that you comment on the content, not the contributor. Certain phrases in your argument could have easily been rephrased to do so. "Nominator seems to be suggesting that..." could easily be replaced with "The argument seems to suggest that..." and "Nominator may have confused..." could equally be replaced by "There may be some confusion that..." Cheers, CP 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In your experience discussion leads to stagnation?


 * In my experience it is over-hasty boldness that leads to trouble; it unnecessarily erodes the spirit of civility and collegiality necessary for the wikipedia to function smoothly. No offense but over-hasty boldness does not comply with WP:NOT.  When I first read WP:BOLD I thought its intended audience was non-confident newbies, who needed encouragement to think they could make a positive contribution to the project.  It never occurred to me that it was intended to empower individuals to skip essential discussions.  And, frankly, absolutely nothing in my experience since then has caused me to change my mind that overly-hasty interpretations of WP:BOLD represent an absolutely unnecessary breach of civility.


 * I am sorry to read that you found my comments abrasive. I know that participants are supposed to refrain from attacking nominators.  I honestly do not believe the two passages you quote constitute a personal attack.


 * You offer the example of Fabio. Individuals who go by just one name is very uncommon in the European tradition of naming.  Cher, Madonna, Galileo all have multiple names.  Individuals having just one name, never having had more than one name, is extremely common in Afghanistan.


 * Your Wall Street Journal described Ezatullah, the Governor of Sangin District as a "a local strongman". In Afghanistan someone is not considered a local even if they are from the same province, if they are from the next valley over, or if they are from a different tribe.  Sangin and Sorubi are separated by half a dozen provinces.


 * Regarding whether the references you found referred to one individual or two you wrote above:


 * I urge you to remember that the wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative effort. I urge you to consider the value of candidly stating aspects you find ambiguous, and asking for input from other contributors.  Is there really anyone who expects you to do everything without input from others?  Is there really anyone who expects you to do anything without input from others, when you find a situation confusing or ambiguous?  I, for one, would urge you to do the opposite, to so what I do, and seek input from others anytime you find a situation confusing or ambiguous.  I am going to repeat that the wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative effort.


 * No offense, but it seems to me that what you described as "a trap" is only a trap if you think you must act without discussion or input from others.


 * I am frankly mystified as to why you wouldn't see this ambiguity as a reason to initiate a discussion -- not make a nomination for deletion.


 * You suggested here, and on the afd page, that the information in this article should be merged with another article. But in neither place did you state which article.


 * In my experience this is something merge advocates generally overlook. Even relatively brief articles, like this one, do not have obvious targets they should be merged with.


 * Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to see this as anything but a series of distractions. Whether it is the same person or not is completely irrelevant; two trivial mentions do no more to establish notability than one. My argument is that there are not enough sources to establish a full and neutral biography. Your response has been to:


 * 1) Argue that I've confused two different people in a source that I volunteered despite the fact that it would work against my case
 * 2) Try and reduce my argument to something trite, shallow and wholly irrelevant to the policies I intended to discuss
 * 3) Twist my compromise with an impartial quote
 * 4) Write an essay on why my attempt at compromise is flawed
 * 5) Argue that my philosophy on Wikipedia (which, of course, presumes that your interpretation of it from this one event is valid) is uncivil
 * 6) Accuse me of not cooperating with others, a clearly false accusation if you step outside this one article (and even in this one, I did offer a compromise. See List of centenarians, Talk:Oldest people, List of living supercentenarians etc. etc. all of which may have had some bold moves on my part, but were more so the product of long, drawn-out discussion.

None of this at all addresses my argument that the current level of sources, even when taking WP:POLITICIAN into account, is not enough for a full and neutral biography. We've both said our piece in the deletion debate, so let's just move on; I have no interest in discussing this further with you. I don't expect a fruit basket when I nominate an article for deletion, but I do expect arguments based on the content, not the contributor. Cheers, CP 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this be an article, or is this a hoax?
Greetings,

While editing "supercentenarian" articles, I discovered this userpage which looks like, perhaps, it could be an article...but it might also be a hoax. Ryoung122 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillock65/Sandbox-2


 * Hi Robert. I noticed that the article is in three other languages as well: Polish, Russian and Ukrainian. While not impossible, I feel that it's fairly unlikely that this is one giant hoax, particularly as the references seem (in so far as my inability to read Cyrillic letters can take me) to be legit. That, of course, says nothing about whether I believe his age claim is legit or not... I am skeptical of that... Cheers, CP 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Later I found that there was an actual article made (I'll post the article link next), so the question is should the "sandbox" version remain forever, or should it be deleted? Ryoung122

Ok here is the article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Kalnyshevsky

So, with an article now existent, what to do with the sandbox? At the very least it doesn't need to be categorized. I suggest archiving or deletion.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have commented out the categories, as they are not appropriate for user pages. The sandbox is within another user's space, so they can do whatever they like with it and no one else has a say in it, so long as it is not content that violates our user space policies. Cheers, CP 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bart Versieck Block
Now that I'm back from Wiki-vacation, Bart has just "won" a three-month break from Wikipedia. Is this a tag team? (minor attempt at humor) Ryoung122 09:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
I came up with a compromise on Articles for deletion/Onezima "Oni" Ponder and I was wondering if you could comment on it. Thanks. --Npnunda (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded. Cheers, CP 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article was created prematurely and if this woman dies at 110, it won't be a big deal. But often a "deletion" leaves a salted Earth. She is still alive and currently in great health, and has written her own autobiography...thus there is potential for article growth. I suggest merging until she dies or becomes more well-known. There are a number of references but they are in the Ocala area (local coverage). Ryoung122 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User 71 vandal returns
Greetings,

This user has recently made a number of bad-faith edits (claiming that John Babcock died, claiming that Frank Buckles died). I suggest a closer look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.237.243.97

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Robert, I will keep an eye on this IP. Don't forget, however, that everyone is welcome to use the templates at WP:WARN, if they are used appropriately. So if you warn them immediately after reverting, say, vandalism, it makes it a lot easier for admins to establish that they have a history of being a problematic editor. Cheers, CP 16:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Augustin Brassard
I see you replaced the stub on this page, after I saved it. I might have missed something but I have always used the Canada-politician-stub for federal MPs. I think using the current stub may confuse people into thinking he is a Quebec MNA. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the stub type really serves to identify anything substantial about the article itself; rather it should be a reflection of the contents that allows editors who are already involved in the subject to browse through certain stub categories and expand articles that are of interest to them. People should be reading the article, not hoping that a stub template will provide them with an informative summary, so they shouldn't confuse them into thinking anything. Sorting into more specific categories allows editors with targeted interests to browse articles focused on those interests. So someone who is interested in Quebec politicians would miss this article if it were sorted as a Canada-politician-stub.


 * Believe it or not, however, after all that, it really doesn't make much of a difference to me, so I won't revert you if you switch it back, nor will I change it in the Vincent Brassard article that I'm about to edit, but I do think it makes more sense to be a specific as possible. Cheers, CP 02:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Bart Versieck now a sockpuppet?
Greetings,

The below edits look mysteriously like Bart's style of editing, and he is from Belgium. I can't believe he would go this far...it's like he can't "live" without doing this, or what? Sad. Very sad.

(diff) (hist). . Hryhoriy Nestor‎; 19:54. . (+1) . . Flemishboy (Talk | contribs) (Small fix) (diff) (hist). . Anne Christopher‎; 19:49. . (+12) . . Flemishboy (Talk | contribs) (Important additions) (diff) (hist). . Moses Hardy‎; 19:48. . (+1) . . Flemishboy (Talk | contribs) (Small fix)

P.S. I'm turning him in like a teacher disappointed in a student. I have suggested that he shouldn't edit talk pages at all, at least for a time. Oh well.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn, I just lost a bet with myself. I thought it was Plyjacks, but your theory makes more sense. I will bring it up with the blocking admin, Moondyne, and see what they think. Cheers, CP 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think very likely given the subjects, wording of the edit summaries and pedantic nature of a number of the edits. The username seals it for me.  Well spotted. Moondyne 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't know anyone else that calls a 112-year-old woman "fellow." Bart has his own language..."small fix," "minor fixes," "dear friend"... He has not confirmed his identity and I have not asked him, but "Flemish boy" even edited the Onezima Ponder AFD... Ryoung122 06:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser/Case/Bart Versieck ✅. Thanks Robert. Moondyne 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Delfino Borroni to be validated
Greetings,

The GRG hasn't added Delfino Borroni to the lists yet, but we already have the documents...this becomes an issue for the "Oldest People" table where someone will probably add him as the 10th-place person. It may be a few days before he appears on the GRG list.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you might have guessed, I've kind of given up on that page. I do note, however, that Category:Italian supercentenarians has no verified/unverified distinction. Cheers, CP 15:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For help
Hello! The administor VS  asked me to note to other Admins. It happened that I found you and I invite you help to solve the dispute/problem about the article Gaogouli County if you are interested and have time. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=240660700. Thanks! -Dicting (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Things seem to be under control at the moment, but I will keep an eye on the situation. I will advise, however, that comments that begin with "you Koreans" this and "you Koreans" that, among the many other attacks you that are launching against Koreans on the article talk page are completely unnecessary, inappropriate and uncivil and, regardless of whether or not you are correct or supported by community consensus on this issue, you will be blocked for engaging in incivility, so I would advise that you stop making reference to anyone's nationality or any other factor that should be completely irrelevant in this issue. The other editor disagrees with you; if they have biases they are irrelevant so long as they can back up their arguments with policy considerations. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Cheers, CP 16:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Footballers
Thanks for the note. www.allfootballers.com only deals with players who have played in the English Football League or Premier League, so won't be able to help with (for example) Scottish players who only played in Scotland. Hope this is of some help. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! Cheers, CP 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mona Ray
IMDB has Mona's sister Judy King, also an actress, as born 24 March 1907 with no DoD given. Answers.com has 24 March 1904. Doesn't appear to be any information on either after the early 40s so its probably a long shot that they're still alive. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Possibly living people
Hi, I'm not interested in breaking 3RR so please read the reply on my talk page, and if you still disagree let's take it to the BLP noticeboard for discussion. Regards. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you do if you still disagree. But let's see what the person who just posted on your talk page has to say first. Cheers, CP 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I posted the issue at the noticeboard, the discussion can be found here. Regards. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that I've said everything that I wanted to on your talk page. Thanks for the notice. Cheers, CP 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All credit to you for digging up the reference to Errol Harris's 100th birthday, but how did you manage this? I tried a Yahoo search for evidence that he is still alive and did not find any. Are you using more powerful search engines than me? PatGallacher (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That particular one was listed on List of centenarians as a reference, but Google and particularly the news archive are more powerful than Yahoo. Cheers, CP 01:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything illegitimate about tidying up an article based on the information contained in without further research? We are supposed to be working together, articles often improve by increments rather than in major steps, sometimes editors do effectively identify points which merit further research without doing the research themselves. I would not dispute that, in cases of people aged 90+ where there are no recent refs., it would often be desirable for people to do further research, but are they obliged to do so? Is there a Wikipedia guideline which says this, or is this just your personal opinion? I assume that all the legal and other caveats about BLPs apply to "possibly living people", if not this ought to be clarified. PatGallacher (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All I was pointing out on your talk page was that I'm obviously not the only person who is concerned about your attitude towards WP:BLP. Cheers, CP 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It also wasn't a "threat" because I'm not going to block you myself in any circumstance where I'm a party to the disagreement. Cheers, CP 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

disappeared people
I was going by the discussion at Category talk:Disappeared people about whether that category should be a sub-category of Possibly living people. It was decided that it shouldn't be, because they don't exactly overlap: A disappeared person could be definitely dead due to the disappearance being a long time ago (in which case they should be in Year of death unknown), or they could be possibly living due to the disappearance being recent and no further information being available (in which case they'd also belong in Possibly living people). --Delirium (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I thought the two categories were supposed to be mutually exclusive, but that doesn't seem to be what happens in practice (Holloway isn't the only disappeared PLP), so I guess consensus wins the day on this one! Cheers, CP 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Godtfred Holmvang
Hi!

Just in case you still need his birth certificate, you could access it here http://www.colleduc.ee/~taavi/Godtfred%20Holmvang%20death%20cert%20001.jpg. This was sent to us by Holmvang's son-in-law. Gh (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect, thanks! Cheers, CP 02:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbara J. Spencer
Hi Paul, why have you deleted Barbara J. Spencer?

After Notability (people) a person should be "widely cited", what she is (see here), or after Notability (academics) a person should held a "named/personal chair appointment" (she is Asia Pacific Professor in Trade Policy, see her homepage). On top of that she was President of the Canadian Economics Association and had an entry in the 3rd edition of the Who's Who in Economics. --Ephraim33 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. At the time of deletion, the entire content of the page was "Barbara J. Spencer, professor of Asia-Pacific International Trade at the University of British Columbia." and some categories. There's not even a verb in that sentence, much less any assertion of notability. I have no opposition to it being recreated, but if you want to avoid it from being speedied again, it needs to be recreated in a way that asserts notability and provides references to verify that notability. If you included all the information above, I would guess that would be more than enough to avoid deletion of any kind. Cheers, CP 15:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that was a bit too short. So I see why you had to delete it. Can you restore the article now, so that I can write a few sentences more? --Ephraim33 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there's nothing really to restore and restoring it would only mean that there's a speedy deletion candidate floating around until it's improved, so you might as well just start again when you're ready. Cheers, CP 16:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pleazzze recreate it (I don't want to be the person to create the article). I'm ready with my preparations, to put them online just after you recreated the article. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, but if it floats around for too long in its current state, I'm sending it back to hell. Cheers, CP 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I'm not native english speaking I'm a bit afraid to write to much low quality stuff. So I have only written a few sentences with the most important facts about her. I hope the article will survive now. Cheers. --Ephraim33 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a few tweaks, but it should survive I would think. I certainly won't be nominating it for deletion. Cheers, CP 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

mark matthews
i'm not going to enter into any dialog whatsoever on this, but that article was...and apparently is again...a disaster. it is poorly written, fraught with redundancy and almost unreadable. if you like it the way it is, well...more power to you. --emerson7 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you don't want to enter into dialog, because Wikipedia is built upon consensus, not by the opinion of one person, and so far it has been agreed that Mark Matthews is a good article that abides by the manual of style. There's certainly room for improvement, but the changes you seek, on this or any other article, will never be enacted if you're not willing to discuss things with the rest of the community. Cheers, CP 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arne Barhaugen
In this edit on July 20, 2008 you added to his article that he has died. I am unable to confirm this through an online search and need to ask you where you obtained this information. Until I can include a reliable source his death cannot be included in the 2008 in Norway article. __meco (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bob Blake (ice hockey) dyk
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warring
i read over both versions of the disputed edits, and the article is much improved after my initial edits removing redundancies, and resolving several other mos issues,. according to wp policy, no such discussion is required, and your wholesale reverts are inappropriate. however, if there are errors in content and/or policy, by all means, have at it, but you cannot make blanket claims of non-compliance to justify your reverts. --emerson7 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And making a few edits to justify massive MOS violations like removing the entire lead and removing references to material is equally wrong. Since you've flat out declared that you're not willing to discuss the issue (which is unfortunate, since I have reviewed both versions and a lot of the changes are good), my next step is to get a third party involved. I will leave the version as it is and ask the original GA reviewer to tell us what they think. Cheers, CP 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:24.47.145.200
This user seems to be User:CalendarWatcher in disguise. Please see the IPs edit history, 1908, and Talk:1908. Wrad (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that's worrisome. For now, since things appear to have calmed down, I'll assume good faith and let it slide, but if there's any more disruptive activity, it'll definitely call for some action. Cheers, CP 20:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Wrad (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FAR listing
nominated Lazare Ponticelli for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tony  (talk)  11:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... thanks for the notice. I think I'll check this out a little later and make a few comments. Cheers, CP 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Horace Wass
I have no reason to doubt you, but could you point me to a reference that backs up Horace Wass's date of death? I've been searching for months to no avail! Thank you in advance. Bobo. 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:Bobo192, Canadian Paul said: Hi. You and me both! They've actually updated his (along with many others') Cricinfo profile, which lists his date of death now. I was quite shocked to see it! Cheers

I had forgotten to look that up beforehand. That'll learn me to do more research! All the best. I'm certain there are some more names I've written about who don't have death dates attached. I'll go searching... Bobo. 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keymaker
Hi. I believe all concerns for GA are adressed now, could you re-review the article (renominated recently)? Thanks in advance. --Brandспойт 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry but, for personal reasons, I don't do GA reviewing anymore unless I nominate an article myself. Cheers, CP 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pool of Radiance
Hey. :) I'm pretty neutral either way. I didn't take a lot of time to look at it, but posted the merge tags to encourage discussion.  If there's a lot of overlap in the two articles, they probably should be merged or cut down to reduce the overlap; otherwise I'd say merge is a good idea. BOZ (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal. :) BOZ (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Elinor Smith
I figured she was alive, since there had been no obits, but hadn't heard anything of her in several years. - Jmabel | Talk 02:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I aim to please. :) Cheers, CP 06:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Delaney Bramlett
I've noticed you've had to correct some issues with the text of the Bramlett article. I invite you to read (if you haven't done so already) comments on the article's talk page. User "Zbestwun2001" seems to think he owns the article and has repeatedly removed edits of mine and others. He seems to have some kind of personal animosity towards Bramlett's ex-wife Bonnie, for example, and repeatedly removes any mention of her name. Not that it matters to me, personally, as I have other things to do beside get into some kind of edit war. At any rate, I wanted to bring this to your attention as I have noticed you have some administrative capacity. Cheers!--Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's very worrisome. I'll keep my eye on the page and, if they return and continue with the WP:OWN and WP:COI issues, some action will definitely need to be taken. Thanks for letting me know, it is very important and serious. Cheers, CP 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hofmann
Hello, I noticed you removed my external link to the Times obit on Hofmann. Perhaps we disagree about this, but I've found that some folks who won't necessarily read the fine print (i.e., footnotes) will sometimes click on an external link. Thus I added the obit itself. I intend to add to this piece on the former NYTimes correspondent when I have time (and it's not a holiday). Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can replace it if you'd like, but it seems a bit unnecessary at the moment, where it would be placed right exactly where the current link is anyhow. There's only one external link on the entire page; maybe if the page was longer or the was more than one reference it would make sense, but it seems a bit superfluous to replicate the sole external link twice in rapid succession. I don't really care though, particularly if you plan on expanding it. Cheers, CP 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see your point with such a short piece. I'll try to expand in the next few days. Happy new year to you and yours. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same to you. Cheers, CP 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks and take care.MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Helen Whitney
Hi. Yes, if you scroll to the bottom of the Oyster Bay Historical Society Freeholder Magazine article, it confirms that Helene Fortescue Reynolds used both names Helene Whitney and Helene Reynolds and provides a list of the films that that she appears in as Whitney and as Reynolds. The Philadephia Inquirer source also confirms that she appeared in The Saint's Double Trouble and makes the link between her as Helen Whitney in that film and the later films Heaven Can Wait, The Man Who Wouldn't Die, Tales of Manhattan and Girl Trouble. A New York Times article of October 26, 1939 confirms that Helene Whitney was "the former Helene Fortescue Reynolds, who played in Hunchback of Notre Dame" It all together adequately confirm the filmography, I think. There is probably more lurking around in the archives of the Washington Post and the New York Times. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm getting a picture of someone who was a notorious socialite of the 1930s, related to the Roosevelt family, got into scandals, whose family was caught up in one of the most widely publicized murders of the era (the Massie Trial), a high society wedding to a tobacco and metals heir, a disastrous marriage, a custody battle, the acting career, became an artist and dealer, her only son tragically died in the 1960s (when he walked into the propeller of a plane), author and director of a play about the Massie Case. There is a massive amount of newsprint about this woman. There's a story waiting to be told! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User 67 Vandalism Returns
Greetings,

This IP address, blocked many times, has returned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.86.118.192

The latest "contribution" includes once again deleting a supercentenarian from a list (as if we wouldn't notice?). Ryoung 122 05:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know Robert; I had completely forgotten about this IP. I've given them their one and only warning... if they do it again, it's another three month vacation. Keep up the good work! Cheers, CP 06:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet
Sounds good; thanks for the help. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have my thanks, as well. David in DC (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just when I thought we were getting along better, you do this. My accusations are based on FACT, not fiction...

1. Both David and Julian voted for deletion.

2. Both of them canvassed for your support, as evident above, and you deleted it.

3. You are not "uninvolved" when it comes to me; you have a long history of harassment/persecution/watching over what I do. You are not my "mentor". You should have recused yourself as a potential COI and allowed a neutral, third-party person to be the judge.

4. About the article itself, Sebastian Bonnet gets more than 79,000 hits on a Google search, so it seems incredulous that Wikipedia, which features articles on high schools, would think this person does not pass the "notability" test.

Ryoung 122 12:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that anything not contained in my reply below will be answered at the deletion review discussion. Cheers, CP 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks?
CP, a few issues:

1. Where is the citation on Wikipedia for this "personal" attack?

Accusing him (I assume the name Julian is a male here, please forgive me if it's not!), or anyone quite frankly, of being "on a crusade against porn, and gay porn in particular" is an uncalled for personal attack,


 * It's right here at User talk:Juliancolton: "Some editors on Wikipedia are typically on a crusade against porn, and gay porn in particular"


 * That never says "Julian Colton is engaging in a crusade," it says "some editors." That comment was meant to be background material (contextual) for what I was looking out for; it does not necessarily apply to everyone or anyone. Ryoung 122 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2. A "personal attack" is something like calling someone "fat" or "ugly" or making false claims that you did something you didn't do--something irrelevant to a discussion. Pointing out behavioral inconsistencies (as I did with the George Francis vs. Walter Bruening debate) is not really a "personal" attack...in fact it's a defense againt real or perceived injustices. If two groups are being treated unequally due to race, religion, gender, national origin, orientation, etc. then there is an issue that needs addressing.


 * A personal attack on Wikipedia is any negative comment that discusses the contributor rather than the contribution. Saying that someone has a "crusade" against something or that they're engaging in "racism" would be a personal attack even if it were true (which, as I discussed in detail, does not at all appear to be the case).


 * We'll have to disagree. A contributor (including me) can be judged by their actions; such is not a personal attack. A personal attack is an unfair or negative comment about the person that is irrelevant to the discussion, and intended to harm the person rather than address the issue at hand. However, if that person is engaging in behavior (such as this post on YouTube):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMOYHpA3C08

grandmastermuffin (2 days ago) Show Hide -6   Marked as spam Reply nigger bitch﻿ die

and you called them out on it by calling it "racism", that's not a personal attack, that's identifying the problem. Ryoung 122 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, you have engaged in real "personal" attacks: remember "boy who cried wolf"? That was a personal attack. In the story of the boy who cried wolf, the boy lied...so you are calling me a liar. But I didn't lie, what I said was either true or I believed it to be true. The definition of a lie is to say something that is known to be false for the purpose of deceiving another person. So, I would advise two things:


 * The story is not just about lying and being a liar. If you place my remark in the proper context of my commentary on the use of the term "racism", then hopefully my meaning will be clear. Furthermore, while I do not deny that I was advising you not to refer to every such case as "racism," it was meant to discuss a wider problem. I do not agree with that definition of a lie anyhow... if I tell my aunt that I like the uncomfortable socks she gave me, my intent is not to deceive, but to make her happy... but that's irrelevant in any case.

A. An apology


 * I always apologize when I'm wrong. I usually apologize when I'm only somewhat right, if makes people feel better. Sometimes I apologize when I'm completely right, but am uncomfortable with the way that I arrived at that conclusion. I have apologized to you many times in the past, but I see no reason to do so here. Perhaps I will down the road.

B. Recuse yourself from my business and get a third-party editor who doesn't have anything to do with you or me to decide, at least for articles that you have expressed little or no interest in the past. I can likewise apologize to Julian Cotton if you want to temper this down. It was really David in DC whom I was not happy with, and his latest irksome comments on his own talk page are prima facie evidence that he holds a disdain for these types of articles (suggesting that I not try to find sources while at work).


 * I have recused myself from your business by blocking all of your incoming emails. Wikipedia, however, is not "your business", it is public business.

Let's be honest: in Minnesota, the Coleman-Franken election is being decided by a Democratic election board. That is our system, but it's not ethical. Compare that to some states where non-partisan commissions draw election boundaries.


 * Although I would have deleted no matter who it was, I had no qualms doing so with you. The case was a textbook Speedy Deletion under the G4 criteria. I was in a unique position having been involved with your activities for a long time but also uninvolved in the particular debate, so I felt that it was very appropriate to undertake the deletion myself and deal with any fallout. Familiarity may breed contempt, but it also allows you to work with someone you know, which should be easier on you I would think. It would have happened either way; at least with me you can deal with someone with whom you are accustomed.

Humans are human; we have emotions. We are not computers. You are only fooling yourself if you think you can be fair or partial 100% of the time, especially when it involves something that you are emotionally involved in.


 * I'm not fair or partial 100% of the time. Sometime's I'm unfair, sometimes I'm more than fair. I'm content here. Cheers, CP 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day. Ryoung 122 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Abdul
Hi CP, I apologize if you found my reasoning insulting, it was not meant to be. I removed the prod because I wanted it to be taken to AfD, where hopefully someone can find a source for it somewhere. I am going to continue to look for sources myself. Once again, I apologize if you found my reasoning insulting.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay. I was just a little upset after having done all that searching to see that! Haha, no hard feelings at all! Cheers, CP 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sebastian Bonnet
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sebastian Bonnet. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ryoung 122 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of longest lived state leaders
Would you mind giving input on my last two postings?

Thanks, Star Garnet (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll check them out now. Cheers, CP 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Raheem Glaiati
Hi, I found another source, could you check back to the AfD to see if this is sufficient or if I should continue searching? - Francis Tyers · 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still trivial, but I've wasted too much time on this and the AfD is going to end in no consensus anyways, so I really wouldn't bother searching anymore. I've said my last in the discussion. Cheers, CP 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, how many reliable sources saying that the chap was "renowned" and "well-known" would be make him notable? - Francis Tyers · 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

+1 - Francis Tyers · 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Abdul Raheem Glaiati
Hi, I found another source, could you check back to the AfD to see if this is sufficient or if I should continue searching? - Francis Tyers · 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still trivial, but I've wasted too much time on this and the AfD is going to end in no consensus anyways, so I really wouldn't bother searching anymore. I've said my last in the discussion. Cheers, CP 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, how many reliable sources saying that the chap was "renowned" and "well-known" would be make him notable? - Francis Tyers · 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

+1 - Francis Tyers · 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the number of sources that matter but their depth. Let's say that John Smith is a poet and there are 100 sources that say nothing more than something to the effect of: "John Smith is a notable poet who wrote Cleopatra in the Garden, a work that is widely studied in American high schools as the primary example of Neo-Egyptian Classicism." There's plenty that talk about the poem itself, but nothing more about Smith, except maybe a brief biographical tidbit or two like he was born in Iowa in 1923. That's it. So the best you could ever have as an article would be:

John Smith (born 1923) was an American poet who wrote Cleopatra in the Garden, a popular work among Neo-Egyptian Classicists. He was born in Iowa.


 * That, to me, is not deserving of an article and would be best merged into the article on the poem or the movement, even if 100 sources, all independent, reliable etc. etc. mentioned it. Since we're not in a deletion discussion, I can mention that my personal Wikipedia philosophy emphasizes quality over quantity. As I say on my user page, Wikipedia is a joke amongst almost everyone I know. Their complaint is not that it isn't comprehensive enough or anything like that, it's that it's unreliable. The way to fix that problem is not to create hundreds of little stubs that can never be expanded. Thanks to WP:ATHLETE, for example, we have thousands... without exaggerating, thousands... of articles like these. Even taking out the medal winners and the notable individuals on that list who are not medal winners, check how many are left where nothing more than "John Smith was a runner from Fooia who participated in Fooistics at the Footh Olympic Summer Games." Now consider this: the people on that list are only those over the age of 90 and under the age of 103 who are either alive or missing a date of death. Considering that, according to this site, there are just under 117,000 individuals who have competed in the Olympics... if even 10% of them are not doubles, have Wikipedia pages, and are not medal winners or otherwise notable, that means there are 11,700 perma-stubs out there. You may think I'm exaggerating, but check out some of the users who have been creating these articles... they've been doing it for years. And yes, you can quickly point out that I'd created a dozen or two, but all of mine were either medal winners, pages created to avoid confusing disambiguation terms/redirects or are at least start class. And of those, I would gladly merge/delete most of them if WP:ATHLETE were to be abandoned tomorrow. Now imagine if all that effort had gone into sourcing and expanding articles to the Featured Article status; we'd probably have double the amount we do now. Now of course FA isn't perfect, that may not be where their interests lie and not everyone (myself included) has the resources to churn out FA articles. My point is simply that the thousands of stubs that will never be anything more than that do very little for Wikipedia except to keeping adding to that big number on the main page.


 * Returning back to the issue at hand, I don't feel that I have a right to complain about anything that I don't work at improving. My work at Wikipedia is a lot of things... sometimes it's improving articles, sometimes it's finding sources, sometimes it's fighting vandalism, sometimes it's going through Category:Possibly living people and removing some of the hundreds of individuals who do not belong there. And sometimes it's going with my gut and nominating an article that I do not feel meets Wikipedia's standards. That is how I feel about Abdul Raheem Glaiati. Despite the sources that you have added, the article has not been improved one bit since I nominated it for deletion. I am wrong at times about the articles I nominate: Bill Parker (artist/inventor) has improved drastically since I nominated it and I was happy to withdraw. I'll gladly admit to a mistake if in the end said mistake improves the project. Nothing has convinced me that the article should remain; at best, I am convinced that, if proper research was done, it could be recreated to meet the standards. I would love for this individual to be notable. I'm a Middle Eastern scholar; somewhat aptly I was watching Khartoum last night and I thought about how little most people must know about Sudan. I would be thrilled to see Glaiati at WP:GAN some day. Until those sources emerge, however, the only use that this article serves is as a little page where it can be said that "Oh look, we're overcoming out biases!" If comprehensiveness were the problem, that would be splendid. Since it's not, however, all it does is add one more individual with theoretical notability to the pile of permastubs that litter this project.


 * Also, I will ask you kindly to stop posting updates on my talk page every time you locate a trivial source. For one thing, I have already mentioned that I am aware of what the outcome will be and that I have no further comment on the deletion debate. For another, even if I change my mind or see a spectacular piece of evidence, the debate is still on my watchlist until it closes, so I politely request that you please avoid adding a comment such as "+1" to my page, which is uninformative at best and harassing at worst. Cheers, CP 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So what would you consider a non-trivial source ? An full autobiographical work ? It is also curious that a Middle Eastern scholar was, despite quite some searching, incapable of locating the sources I found -- especially given that I currently don't have access to JSTOR and had to plead with friends to email me the papers. Perhaps I should change my vocation! I do however disagree on one point and commend you, the article has been improved, it now has three interesting sources that people can check up -- among others on the talk page, and a variety of ways of transliterating the chap's name -- which should make it easier for people interested in doing some actual research. - Francis Tyers · 06:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A non-trivial source is one that discusses the subject in depth and provides enough material to significantly contribute to a full, neutral biography of an individual. I was not incapable of finding them, I simply had no interest in doing the job of someone who appeared incapable of providing sources in the first place. I did a cursory search; more than was required of me as the onus of sourcing is on the person who adds the material. Given how unsubstantial the scraps that you have found are, I can hardly be blamed for not putting in a lot of effort to find them. And no, you have not improved the article, as it still contains nothing more than the same two sentences that were there when I nominated the article in the first place. Those sources should have been there in the first place, so all you have done is what you were supposed to do, just three years after the fact. My patience of assuming good faith is nearing its limit, particularly with insulting comments such as "It is also curious that a Middle Eastern scholar was, despite quite some searching, incapable of locating the sources I found -- especially given that I currently don't have access to JSTOR and had to plead with friends to email me the papers. Perhaps I should change my vocation!". There is too much shit going on in real life right now for me to really care all that much about this anymore, as I have indicated, for the third time now, by asking you to drop the issue, which you continue to ignore despite already having won the issue. If you leave any more comments on my talk page regarding this matter, they will be deleted and unanswered, as will be this entire discussion in 24 hours. 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI Incidents:GregL
A certain user has been using abusive and foul language here, including 4-letter words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)&curid=189815&diff=262645275&oldid=262644436

You might be interested since you tend to be a "policeman"...the levels of verbal abuse are quite high (worse than me, by the way). Worse than that is the attempted verbal intimidation. Ryoung 122 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will check it out immediately. Cheers, CP 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood: debunked in 1939
Greetings,

Today I discovered that the Mary Ramsey Wood claim to "120" in 1908 was debunked by experts, who published results, in 1939.

Here is the citation:

Bowerman, W.G. (1939). Centenarians. Transactions of the Actuarial Society of America, 40,102, 360-378.

So, I withdraw credit for myself, having re-did what someone did a long time ago. But the bottom line is, the case is not just a fraud but has been documented as such. Ryoung 122 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag Templates for French departments
Can you or someone else fix the flag templates for France? Unlike Italy and Japan, where all the province/prefecture links work, only some work for France, and some don't. See the List of French supercentenarians for an example. Ryoung 122 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. You can see what I did by checking out the diff... for the most part, the word "flag" was left out, but the region always has to be the same as the Wikipedia page too. Cheers, CP

Tom Van Flandern
Hi, I saw your note about the references for a death notice, and have added two references to sites that document his death (including a notice by one of his children), and another reference that discusses the terminal diagnosis immediately before death. I believe this is sufficient, but the sites do reference each other. Please let me know if more information is necessary. This is my first article and I'm slogging thru the guidelines & discussion on editing, but TVF's family has not purchased a death notice in the Seattle papers, and the online King County death record is non-free, so any other suggestions for references would be appreciated if required. Thanks, Theviewfromhere (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That should be good enough for now - I'm sure that something better will show up sooner or later. Thanks for the link! Cheers, CP 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Stewart Lane, Lord Lane of Horsell
Regarding this edit: You do realise I already had an en dash in place? The bar below the edit window affords one the option of adding "–" without going to the trouble of typing " ". The Parting Glass (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just keep this to ourselves shall we? Otherwise, you might foil my nefarious plot to bump up my edit count by making, minor, but useless changes. ;)


 * Seriously though, it's nothing more than a personal preference, since it clearly indicates the nature of the dash, so if I see it, I change it. If you prefer the other way though, I have no particular problem with it, so I'm certainly not going to revert you if you prefer the other way! Cheers, CP 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Irene Melikoff
well, I did notice he's done like 5 reverts if that would be helpful... Otherwise, you could recruit other editors to revert him so you don't violate the rules ;-) Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to have settled down now, so I'll let it slide for the moment... but if anything else happens, I'll take it to some next steps. Thanks for the response! Cheers, CP 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Teresa Fumarola-Ligorio
This article was created in Feb 2004 by Louis Epstein (12.144 IP address). It has existed almost five years. This woman was for a time the oldest Italian on record. Personally, the article could probably stand alone but if not, a "merge" as a fallback position is not unreasonable. Ryoung 122 17:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice Farve
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2009/01/19/brunswick_second_oldest_dies.html

Considering how much information went into this story, what comes out is a lot less... Ryoung 122 05:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

?
Hi Paul! Please allow me to ask you for some help. Can you please move the page Nalbert Bittencourt to the correct spelling with only one "t" to Nalbert Bitencourt? I have added a source and also the Portuguese wiki spell his name with only one "t". My second question is about "James Barker". You know, that he was deleted, but now I have collected a lot more. Maybe you have see the "article" on my user page. So I want to ask you what can or must be done to bring him back to a full article? Many thanks in advance and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll check out both in a moment. Cheers, CP 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Paul! Hmm, it doesn't look like that I have your support. And from the non-existing WP:Olympics I know that there is no help! I tried to do my best, but as far as I know he is the only Olympic competitior to be deleted... :-( Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Paul! Having a look at the old deletion discussion I saw again that there were 17 "votes" for keep, 9 for delete, and only 3 for redirect... and the result was redirect?! Well I will think about it. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixing Article on Jack Shaw
'''Paul.....Thank you for fixing the title of my article on Coach Jack Shaw. I had no idea how to go about making the change and was looking for assistance in that regard. You are a Mind Reader.

Chuckjav'''


 * No problem. I aim to please! Cheers, CP 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)