User talk:SiameseTurtle

Welcome!
Oldest polish people

These lists are proven records

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najstarsi_ludzie

for more information please contact Wolfgang http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Wolfgang/brudnopis http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Wolfgang/brudnopis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.218 (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Miriam Carpelan
Could you explain, why you include Miriam Carpelan in lists of supercentenarians? I found no reasons for that. RuPassenger (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Age tagging
What does "df" mean?

df=yes}}

Ryoung122 07:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It puts the day first. Wikipedia says that "articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently". As Florrie Baldwin is British, I decided to change the dates on her page to the British format, putting the date before the month. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians
Just to give you a heads-up, there are two unreflected GRG changes made on October 5. I will recuse myself from making the changes myself. Ryoung 122 08:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians (by nation)
Greetings,

We have a list of Wikipedians by edit count that reaches to the top 4000 or so positions, so I don't see what's wrong with listing all validated supercentenarians by nation. The US list would be over 570, but Japan less than 120, and UK and France about 100 each. Most national lists would be far shorter. If we do so, the lists could be by chronological order rather than age-ranking.

An alternate method is a "population pyramid". That is, we can take the U.S. data and say that 570 made it to 110, of which X made it to 111, Y made it to 112, etc. The point is to provide a balance...too often we see in the media the oldest person at 112 (Beatrice Riley, oldest Australian) but we do not realize that even that age is a survivor from a base at 110: Australia probably has 5 living supercentenarians. Just because we don't know all of them right now, doesn't mean they aren't there. The GRG living list was never intended to be demographically valid--it's affected by news reporting that favors who is in first place. For example, some news reports on Beatrice Riley claim that Australia's second-oldest person was born Dec. 1896, but right now the case is anonymous, so we don't have that person on the GRG list. But if we go by death data from the past, especially large sets like the U.S., UK, or France, we can see that if the oldest person in a nation is 112, there's likely to be 2 people aged 111, and 4 aged 110.

Using a .5 mortality rate (considered the correct rate by the leading experts), given 1000 supercentenarians at age 110, how the data should go:

Age 110: 1000 Age 111: 500 Age 112: 250 Age 113: 125 Age 114: 63 Age 115: 31 Age 116: 15 Age 117: 7 Age 118: 3 Age 119: 2 Age 120: 1

However, it does appear the mortality rate begins to increase around age 114 to .6, so there are fewer observed deaths than the above hypothetical example.

In any case, the "list of living supercentenarians" lets us see that even though some persons get more coverage than others, rank-wise their age may not be all that. For example, Beatrice Riley ranks just 31 on the world list. Thus, a listing of all validated 110+ cases allows the viewer to get a full picture, instead of a media distortion of events.

Finally, if those who wanted to delete supercentenarian articles realized that only about 10-15% of cases had individual articles (in other words, we are showing some discretion before rushing to create an article), then it would be more understandable why Camille Loiseau or Bettie Wilson might deserve a mini-bio. Wikipedia states that media coverage is the least reliable of the "reliable" sources, so to counter this there should be an attempt made to make these articles more scientific and more demographic. Conversely, statistics alone simply won't do. Remember the "oldest Belgian" who turned out to have died in 1954? Simply having a list alone with no biography is the alternate risk. Thus, a balanced, pluralistic approach: one that incorporates the dual concerns of statistics and human interest/oral history, is needed. I could do this myself but it would be COI. Therefore, I leave it to others, but I feel strongly there needs to be a better approach than simply "As of Oct 2008, Person X ranks in the top 40 oldest people ever." This is missing the point...the point of a lot of cases is to show how rare the age is, but also how regular the deaths are and how clean the data fit together when only validated cases are accepted. We can see this in the U.S. data...the oldest living American has been 113 or older since 1986, but often just 113. The cohort-extinction range is a lot tighter than would be expected, unless there might be a "plastic-maximum" life span...in other words, after a certain point it becomes increasingly unlikely that there will be anyone left alive. If people could see clean demographic data, they wouldn't be making diatribes claiming that living to ages 125 or 130 is reasonable, those people are real, etc. Check out, for example, the latest rant on the longevity claims talk page. Ryoung 122 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * During the summer holidays, I've had plenty of free time to help but my final year at university is just beginning so I'm likely to have less time to spend editing Wikipedia, among other things. Free time I do have to spend will probably be spent on helping to validate cases. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Race Data
Greetings, the consensus discussion was that "race data" could stay for U.S. data. Ryoung 122 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for "Immigrant records"
Comment. One reason I support a listing "by birth" is that a person can be born only once, but could live in more than one state at the same time (Leona Tuttle) or move at age 110 (Charlotte Benkner). In addition, listing by place of residence introduces the possibility of someone moving simply to set a record in a state with a low record threshold. Listing by birth treats everyone equally and removes any possibility of manipulation. Further, the source of validation is usually tied to birthplace. As to the comment that Linnie Jones is the "immigrant record" for Colorado, stop a minute and consider what the term "immigrant" means: does it include only international migration, or is internal immigration included? It would not be that difficult to list, then, Linnie Jones as the immigrant recordholder for Colorado. Taking this to the ultimate conclusion, one could create a "table of records by place of death or current residence" (but many of those would be overlapping, and in addition, I don't think as much weight should be given to immigrant records because, as Louis Epstein has also argued, someone could live somewhere for just a few years, and not be the person who lived in the state the longest. The easiest/cleanest way to solve this problem AND avoid overlap (as the silly world's oldest person/world's oldest woman list on the oldest people article) is to have a main table of records by place of birth, and a secondary table of "immigrant records" (by place of death or residence, but only in cases where that record would exceed the common record). Thus Walter Breuning could be the "immigrant recordholder" for Montana.Ryoung122 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Comment Part II. Listing by other means also runs the risk of an "original research" charge, as there is no source online that lists by place of death or residence.Ryoung122 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Comment Part III. There is one more rationale for keeping the system as it is now...consider this: Walter Breuning was born in Minnesota, so could potentially, one day, be the Minnesota state recordholder (by birth). Likewise, Gertrude Baines, born in Georgia, is nearing the Georgia state record, even though she would be the California state recordholder if listed by place of residence (having one person holding more than one state record defeats the purpose of this table, which is to break up the U.S. data in European-state-sized parts for better comparison values). Mary Ray, born in Canada, could NEVER be a recordholder by birth for any state. Thus, there is a logical reason to have an "immigrant records" footnote for international, but not national, migration.Ryoung122 09:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_oldest_people_by_U.S._state" Categories: Start-Class World's Oldest People articles | Mid-importance World's Oldest People

WP:NAMES
Please note in this section where it specifically states: Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name. 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misinterpreted 'subject' as meaning the title of the degree. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to John Evans (centenarian) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

List of American supercentenarians
For those listed here that have their own article, can you change them to the "main article" format as exemplified in the List of British supercentenarians? There's no need for a lot of redundant information.... Ryoung 122 19:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of French supercentenarians
Greetings,

Could you help out here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_supercentenarians on technical issues? For example, Eugenie Blanchard's entry is not colored green on the list of oldest French persons. Also, the flag links for Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Reunion are not showing the individual flags.

I do have some more information (places of death, for example) that will allow me to eventually fill in the whole table. Ryoung 122 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I'm sorry but I do not know to speak very well English. I wanted to only say that the emigrating cases are present nelleliste of the countries in which they have been moved. Task that can be in two various lists therefore I do not suggest to remove them from those Europeans. You say your opinion to me? (If you even knew to speak Italian...) --William Hartman (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:HarryPatch.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:HarryPatch.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. TimTay (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just responded to your comments on File talk:HarryPatch.jpg. Let me know if you have any questions. --TimTay (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Costa dos Santos
Should be moved to the "limbo" list. I have heard of this case before but I can't find anything at the moment. Give me some time to do a little research. Ryoung 122 06:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure who this person is! Which page is this about? SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see this Report on Amélia Costa dos Santos with 119 years old, which is more recent than the Longevity claims article had. I've already made the update.Japf (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Dosaigues
I don't think she should be removed yet...no one has bothered to even ask a Spanish colleague if she is still alive. Ryoung 122 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Report on living Teresa Desaigues in May 2009 .Japf (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oldest Person by Year of Birth
Greetings,

Regarding the "oldest person by year of birth" article: ANYONE on that page should have to be verified by an official body, even if less than 110...because there is only one record per year. Ryoung 122 06:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.214.18 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian Supercentenarians
Have you read the article, or only the title? It is well stated that these are only claims, and these extreme longevities are all probably false, but they exist, that's why I made the article. If it makes you happy I may change the title to "List of brazilian supercentenarian claims" or "claims of extreme longevity in Brazil"Japf (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Living national longevity recordholders
It would be better to have the age at 60 days to remove sections which are no longer relevant (such as Carlo Dozzi). To keep a section from being archived only needs a post every 2 months (and there shouldn't be too many to keep an eye on). If there's no discussion for an extended period then it would probably be better to archive it and start a new section when information becomes available. Cheers, 12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that reports on the oldest person tend to only be released on their birthday - which can be up to a year away, so I think 2 months is too short. I've moved the Carlo Dozzi section to the archive and in an ironic twist found a report of the oldest woman in Trinidad and Tobago (though the man is still not known). SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Listcruft
Can you nominate this article for deletion?

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

It's clear that the rest of the articles are organized by nation or continent, not two continents. Ryoung 122 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Frederick Butterfield
An article that you have been involved in editing, Frederick Butterfield, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cheers, CP 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Oldestinuk.png
Do you have an appropriate citation for the source of the statistical data used to make the chart? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Data is from and  SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Longest Marriages Page
Greetings,

Could you possibly separate this into verified/unverified/debunked sections? The Thomas and Sarah Morgan claim has already been shown to be false, and several others are poorly sourced. Ryoung 122 02:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_longest_marriages
 * I'm not sure which are verified/unverified/debunked and let's not forget there isn't a 'GRG' for people attaining 80 years of marriage. If Guinness have retracted the Morgan case, then it can be removed anyway. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Supercentenarians
Can u give me the links on Anna Marie	Houlmann-Schmutz and Cristina Rosa Quilico's deaths please since u said that they have deceased. Thank you!--Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anna Marie Houlmann-Schmutz died in late 2008: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/13562
 * Cristina Rosa Quilico died 19 October 2008: http://www.socremvarese.it/Nibbio/nibbio03.pdf SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_national_longevity_recordholders
Could you go through and add a orange or red background color to cases on this page claiming to be 110+ and not verified internationally, such as cases from Moldova and Poland? This would be a compromise solution to automatic deletion. Ryoung 122 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Martha Graham (supercentenarian)
What is misleading about "As was the case with most slaves, no records prove the date of Graham's birth, although her birth month is certain."? ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 16:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because her birth month is not certain, it was extrapolated from her (one of many) claimed ages at death. Consequently, the case is not accepted by the GRG, only Guinness. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

your ancestry
you dont have to travel around to trace your ancestors, you can go to http://www.ancestry.com/ 74.249.146.74 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Izumi's birth date and its implications
The Wiki article on Shigechiyo Izumi says: "He claimed to have began his career in 1872", if this is false, then it is false because it's the wrong date. We may be able to determine its falsity from other proxies, such as if his actual birthdate was 6 or 7 years later than he claims, however, there are many ways in which his claims about his birthdate could be false, and the amount of time he claims his career spanned could still be true; likewise, the amount of time he claims to have spent working could be false and his claimed birthdate could still be true. Obviously, then, whether or not the length of his career is as long as he claims does not directly rest upon whether his birthdate is when he claims, which is what the Wiki article states (stated, I hope, as long as another person doesn't erroneously edit it back to the completely absurd claim it had before I fixed the incredibly obvious error). And of course that's not even the worse of it, considering whether he has had the longest career of any person is a question even further removed. I hope I'm not being too esoteric here, this is really fairly obvious and just plain simple stuff. MarcelB612 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the dispute over his age suggests that he may have been born in 1880 (aged 105 at death), it directly affects the claim that he started his career in 1872. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stanley Lucas
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stanley Lucas, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cheers, CP 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Edna McClure
did she really die, if so can you please post a link if there is any? 65.0.53.189 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert
Please note for an edit such as |this, it is requested that you explain if reverting an edit. Specifically, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Hope you are doing well! Thank you! Cander0000 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Living Supercentenarians
Well, you managed to finally give the HIE the old heave-ho. But having a three-list system was far more practical, in reality. We all know that some cases, such as Ellen Watson, are "just over 110" cases that haven't been added to the GRG list yet, but in all likelihood will...while others, such as a claim from Nicaragua, are going nowhere fast. So perhaps the lists could be separated according to whether they come from a nation that had a validated case in the past? Ryoung 122 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus gave the HIE the old heave-ho. Many of the statements that you added are what I was trying to avoid. They are arbitrary, sweeping statements. For example "Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of verification will be small (less than 10%)" - you can't infer the likelihood of specific cases, and the figure is plucked out of the air. We need to be impartial on Wikipedia. There's simily far too much original research in the intro. I suggested two weeks ago that we could highlight cases where there hasn't been a supercentenarian before in that country - something which Canada Jack has brought up again. However, I disagree with a third list. We need the lists to be cohesive. It would make it more difficult to see the bigger picture. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I believe the word "original research" is bandied about far too often. If you take a gander here:

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

"summary, review, or synthesis" is allowed. Further, this sort of statement is based on research that has been already published. If you want to read through all this material and add sources, be my guest.

SupercentenariansPart I General: On the age validation of supercentenarians.- The International Database Longevity: Structure and contents.- Part II Country reports: ... www.springer.com/sociology/population.../978-3-642-11519-6 - Cached Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Katherine Plunket: A Well ...Validation of Exceptional Longevity. Katherine Plunket: A Well Documented Super-Centenarian in 1930. by A.R. Thatcher ... www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/08.htm - Cached Semi-supercentenarians and seasonal distribution of birth datesMonth of birth and survival to age 105+: evidence from the age validation study of German semi-supercentenarians by. Doblhammer G, Scholz R, Maier H. ... www.supercentenarian.com/semi-supercentenarians.html - Cached Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians: DiscussionRegarding age validation, only two of the purported supercentenarians in the sample were found not to have adequate substantiating evidence of their ages. ... www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228_4 Supercentenarians: slower ageing individuals or senile elderly?*1 ...by JM Robine - 2001 - Cited by 42 - Related articles A.R. Thatcher, Katherine Plunket: a well documented supercentenarian in 1930. In: B. Jeune and J.W. Vaupel, Editors, Validation of Exceptional ... linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0531556500002503 Life at the Extreme Limit: Phenotypic Characteristics of ...Of these 15, 12 (3 men and 9 women) met our age validation criteria and were accepted as supercentenarians. Phenotypic variables studied include medical and ... biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/11/1201

Sincerely Ryoung 122 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where's the evidence that countries with few or no verified cases are <10% likely to be validated? Can it not also be inferred that there will be a greater focus on validating people nearer the top of the list (as I tried to with Matilda Lewis and Ida Stewart)? The references you give are very general and don't address the specific issues in the section introduction. Summary and review is allowed, but synthesis of points of view and data are not. I just want the section to be honest and reasoned. At the moment, it doesn't seem to take a neutral stance. There are a couple of points whih I think could stay, but overall the section appears to be geared towards one point of view without any backing by evidence. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick Ornstein
Greetings,

Some of Nick Ornstein's edits recently have been inappropriate:


 * 23:38, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2008 ‎ (Undid revision 347595133 by SiameseTurtle (talk) ur beginning to get in way. Ive contributed alot my time into this article.juststop) (top)
 * 23:36, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009 ‎ (Undid revision 347595095 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. dont worry about it. ur getting in the way.) (top)
 * 23:35, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 ‎ (Undid revision 347595136 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. your getting in the way.) (top)

I would like to point out that he was born in 1994 (just a kid) and think that a more-constructive way to deal with eager, enthusiastic editors who are quite young includes a little admonishing and pro-active editing. For example, if you felt the German flag for Berta Rosenberg was "historically the wrong one," you could have replaced the modern German flag with the historical one you preferred. Ryoung 122 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of supercentenarians from kansas
Hello SiameseTurtle, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of supercentenarians from kansas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This used to be a redirect to List of American supercentenarians: I'm restoring that instead of deleting. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I
There is a discussion about whether Alexander Imich should be included on the list.

As a frequent contributor on the talk page (more than 10 edits with a last edit in 2010), your thoughts would be appreciated.

The discussion is here

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Font size issue
Greetings,

I am vehemently opposed to Tim198's use of tiny fonts. I would like third-party input as to what others feel about this. I don't need to be wasting my time in an edit war, but I don't feel like an article about OLD people should have very-hard-to-read (size-wise) material. Ryoung 122 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Florence Baker
Actually Siamese, that report was on May 11, 2009, not November 5. Read the first paragraph directly under the Date in red. But thank you for catching me on that. I had no idea she was still alive.

Baker has a 91-year-old daughter. 111 years old seems pretty believable don't you think? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Fanboy list disaster
Greetings,

I thought I would make you aware of this new list here:

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

It's not going by any standard other than what the creators believe. They include SOME unvalidated/longevity-claim status cases, but not others. The list of 108-109-year-olds is, necessarily, original research since no one really keeps track.

Let me know if you can get this list into shape, so that it is not in danger of deletion.

Ryoung 122 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stan Tomlin
Hi, do you have a citation for this edit? Canadian  Paul  01:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stanley A. Tomlin's death was registered in Q1 1969 aged 63 (which he would have been by his date of birth). The nearest birth of another Stanley A. Tomlin was in 1919, so that rules out that it could be someone else. SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Canadian   Paul  04:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nation vs. Country
Regarding the below move,


 * 1) (Move log); 21:42 . . SiameseTurtle (talk | contribs) moved List of oldest people by nation to List of oldest people by country (Nation can mean many things)
 * 2) (Move log); 21:42 . . SiameseTurtle (talk | contribs) moved Talk:List of oldest people by nation to Talk:List of oldest people by country (Nation can mean many things)

I disagree. "Country" can mean a lot of things, too, such as "country boy" (not from the city). We have the "United Nations" not "United Countries." "Country" can also be used to mean an informal nation, such as "the country of Holland."

Ryoung 122 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uses such as "country boy" are irrelevant to the discussion since they have no context in the list. A nation is simply a group of people who share a similar culture, heritage etc. You'll notice that Wikipedia uses "by country" almost exclusively (see lists by country. If the list is going to use the word 'nation' then the UK should be split. Secondly, there's no such thing as a 'country of Holland'. Holland is a region of the Netherlands and not a country in its own right. 'Country' is far less ambiguous than 'Nation'. It's also very easy to stick to internationally recognised countries. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tursk
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for fixing my error. 2tuntony (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Religious Wacko claiming to be "God"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sativarg

Siamese Turtle, can you report this crazy person to an admin for possible blocking?

Thanks Ryoung 122 06:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians notes
Look here:
 * "Lutzko was born in Chortkiv, which was then a part of Austria-Hungary. It is now in Ukraine."

In your terms: Why does it have Lutzko born in Ukraine "WHEN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY DOESN'T EXIST"?

Why on List of European supercentenarians does it have Kowalski's country of birth as UKR? Is it better said "born Austria-Hungary (now 🇺🇦 Ukraine)"? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lutzko was born in Austria-Hungary. Where her birthplace is now is irrelevant. On the list of European supercentenarians, Kowalski's birthplace is given as Austria-Hungary, but it is noted that his birthplace is now in the Ukraine. That does not mean he was born in the Ukraine however. On Wikipedia we have to be historically accurate. Kowalski actively fought against the Ukrainians in the war, so it's very wrong to incorrectly list him as born in Ukraine. Events surrounding the First World War changed many country boundaries and we need to keep that in mind. Kowalski has never lived in Ukraine and he is an ethnic Pole. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jan Goossenaerts
I recently created an article for Jan Goossenaerts, your opinions for this article would be appriciated, their trying to delete it. Longevitydude (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi there,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Pulsatilla alpina fruit.JPG is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 10, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-11-10.  howcheng  {chat} 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI
Please participate in a discussion about users with conflicts of interest editing the topic of longevity. Your name has been mentioned here. JJB 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW ( Talk ) 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Thank you for your contributions, I hope you have a happy birthday. keep up the good work. I hope you have many more wonderful birthdays to come.Longevitydude (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Flags on lists of old people
I notice that you reverted my removal of flags from:
 * List of British supercentenarians your revert
 * List of European supercentenarians your revert
 * List of French supercentenarians your revert
 * List of Belgian supercentenarians your revert

In each case your edit summary said "MOS:FLAG only states that flags should not be used in biographical articles in the introduction and infobox''.

That claim is incorrect. MOS:FLAG is quite a long guideline, and the use of flags in these lists breaches it in numerous ways.
 * List of French supercentenarians
 * MOS:FLAG. That guidance uses the example of biographical articles, but the reason applies here too: that flags convey nationality, but the location of birth and death is not evidence of nationality
 * MOS:FLAG. The guidance notes that "such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article". They do not convey extra information to the general reader, and are visually distracting.
 * List of British supercentenarians
 * MOS:FLAG
 * MOS:FLAG. The MOS specifically cites the British example, because individuals may or may identify with the United Kingdom or its members countries; but this list applies the flags indiscriminately to place of birth and death, without any evidence as to whether this reflects the individual's identoification
 * MOS:FLAG specifically cites the use of the Ulster Banner as being politically charged and inappropriate. This list wrongly applies the Ulster Banner to all mentions of Northern Ireland, without evidence that the banner is relevant to the usage or that the individual concerned identifies with this highly-charged symbol
 * List of Belgian supercentenarians
 * MOS:FLAG
 * MOS:FLAG. As above, national flags are used to indicate the country of death of Belgian supercentenarians who died outside Belgium, without evidence that this accurately reflects a change in citizenship
 * List of European supercentenarians
 * MOS:FLAG. That guidance uses the example of biographical articles, but the reason applies here too: that flags convey nationality, but the location of birth and death is not evidence of nationality. In several cases, the nationality of the person in the list is clearly misrepresented by the flag
 * MOS:FLAG. The guidance says "Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all". In this list, 6 entries already have footnotes indicating that relevant political boundaries have changed; use of a flag in such cases misleads the reader.

So, please remove the flags. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have misunderstood the guidelines and the changes that I made.
 * MOS:FLAG: It is clear from the guidelines that this applies to biographical articles only, and more specifically to just the introduction and infobox. Therefore this section does not apply to such articles as lists. However if you choose to invent your own version of this rule, then that is your choice alone. However I quote the guideline itself: "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox", which clearly does not apply here.
 * MOS:FLAG: Sub-national flags are only used in national articles. They do convey extra information to the reader. For example, readers may be interested to know which British supercentenarians died in Scotland. The flags are not visually distracting, since they are contained within a list. Overuse of flags/images refers to disorganised images scattered throughout the article, not when they are organised in a list. See MOS:ICON. Lists are perhaps the best example of the use of flags, which allows for easy visual identification, which has been a point raised in other similar discussions Wikipedia_talk:Use_of_flags_in_articles/Archive_2.
 * MOS:FLAG: You appear to misunderstand that no nationality is listed for the supercentenarians. You may also be interested to know the on other articles, such as list of living supercentenarians, only the country of residence is represented by a flag and the place of birth is footnoted in the table with the town of birth (if known), the country it was in at the time of birth, and the country in which the place of birth now lies.
 * The previous point brings me neatly onto MOS:FLAG since this is another example of where this footnoting is the case. Therefore there are no historically inaccurate flags used, and the table makes it quite clear that the column refers to the place of residence.
 * Therefore I will be reverting your edits since they do not make sense when you refer to Wikipedia guidelines. If you have any other guidelines that may apply here, then please feel free to discuss them. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I have not misunderstood the guidelines, and your replies make me wonder whether you have actually read them.
 * MOS:FLAG. The guidance explains in detail how the flags convey a message of nationality which may not reflect the nationality of the subject. Readers may indeed be interested to know that a person died in Scotland, but that's irrelevant: that fact can be conveyed without the flag. The flag is at best decoration, and at worst misleading.
 * MOS:FLAG. You completely ignored this point which is quite specific about the inappropriateness of using the highly-charged Ulster Banner.
 * MOS:FLAG. The guidance notes that "such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article".  It gives an example "For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida, is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag should generally not be used on articles about residents of Tampa: it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting" ... and residence is what we are discussing here. You completely ignored this point.
 * MOS:FLAG, Again, read the guidelines, and read the whole section rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. That section of the guideline is quite clear that the flags convey a message of nationality which may be inaccurate, and that is the case with their usage in these articles. For example, at List_of_British_supercentenarians Grace Clawson and Miriam Carpelan are listed with United States flags beside their country of death.  Do you have reliable sources that they were American citizens? And if not, why are you misleading the reader by putting the flag beside them?  I have taken those two as an example, but can list dozens more similar instances of the flags being used to mislead.
 * MOS:FLAG is another point where you appear not to have read the guideline. It explicitly says "Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc".  It does not say use the flag to misrepresent, and then add a footnote to explain the misrepresentation to which you have given extra prominence by using the flag.
 * So, please revert your restoration of these flags. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Flags make it visually easier for people to see where the person lives or where they were born. When you see the flag you automatically know the country. An article is better when it is understandable and easy for the reader to read. Similar with flags, it is easier for the individual to know the country/state/whatever. I always will support keeping flags. There are flags in tons of other longevity articles, basically in every one. There is no point in "bullying" 4 of the many articles with flags. There are tons of other lists on Wikipedia that have flags. It is a waste of time removing them when they will be added back in the future. Trust me, they WILL be added back. I can guarantee you that. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick, your comments ignore the guidelines. If you want the guidelines changed, you are welcome to make proposals at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), but unless you achieve consenus for a change, the MOS stands. In the meantime, you offer no reason at all why these articles should be an exception to the guidelines, other than a form of WP:OTHERSTUF.
 * Rather than making spurious allegations of "bullying", please try to discuss the many ways in which I have shown how the use of the flags on these article breaches MOS:FLAG. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG. The fact can of course be conveyed without a flag. Flags, however are not simply for decoration. In a table they can be extremely useful visual aids for the reader.
 * MOS:FLAG. Ignored since it is irrelevant to the discussion.
 * MOS:FLAG. The example given talks about the use of a city flag (not even a state flag) on an article about people from that city, which is not the same.
 * MOS:FLAG. I'm afraid that it is you, not me, that is cherry-picking the phrases. I'm merely quoting and paraphrasing what the guideline says. On the other hand, you are choosing to ignore specific sections of the guideline to suit your position.
 * MOS:FLAG. Please point me to the guideline which says that place of residence is the same as nationality.
 * Therefore I am once again reverting your edits, since their use does not conflict with MOS:FLAG. Please try and gain consensus before making changes. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Siamese Turtle, I'm astonished that you continue to evade a serious discussion.
 * Taking just two examples:
 * you say that MOS:FLAG is "irrelevant to this discussion". Yet that section specifically deprecates use of the politically-charged Ulster Banner, which is used on List of British supercentenarians. This has pointed out to you several times, yet you continue to ignore it and you have just reinstated it.
 * You say that MOS:FLAG. You say that "The example given talks about the use of a city flag" ... whereas the guideline is absolutely explicit that it is not restricted to cities: "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article"
 * After five days of trying in vain to persuade you to read the guideline, I have to conclude that you are determined not to discuss this in good faith, so I will open an RFC on the topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a mistake on my past after not realising that another user had reinstated the flag prior to your removal of the flags. At the time of the discussion above though, this was not an issue. See my earlier reversions
 * On balance, it may be necessary to remove sub-national flags, though I feel that discussions should be opened on the relevant pages first as there are clearly multiple users for and against. However, it seems that the use of national flags does not conflict with MOS:FLAG. SiameseTurtle (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
 * 2) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
 * 3) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
 * 4) WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
 * 5) Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the db-author or db-self template.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I
Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've reinstated that comment you removed from Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I, as I didn't see it as being in breach of any Wikipedia policies. I share your distaste for the opinion, but I don't think we can remove it because of that - I'll reply to it instead. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum per WP:FORUM. Edits on talk pages are meant to improve the article, not be general comments. They are also certainly not supposed to be comments that are offensive towards living people (see WP:BLP). SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really think WP:FORUM is applicable, because the comment was about the article and what we should include in it - and we can't prohibit the expression of opinions because we personally find them offensive. The best way to address opinions like that is to allow free speech and to answer them, in the open, not to censor them, surely? (And again, please do note that I do agree with you and I disagree with the suggestion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
This is to let you know that I have asked for the Arbitration Enforcement case relating to User: NickOrnstein to be extended to cover off-wiki canvassing through the 110 Club internet forum. Please comment there. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD List of oldest twins
I've nominated an entry you created for deletion. See Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Short articles
Hi! Please don't create unreferenced, single-sentence articles. Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Please don't nominate articles for deletion when they are just being created; I was still editing the article. Thanks. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WP World's Oldest People in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject World's Oldest People for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Journalist
Hi there! I've just had a journalist ring my office, trying to talk to you about a piece she's doing on people born in 1905, 1906 and 1907, and still alive today. Could you drop me an email at richard.symonds@undefinedwikimedia.org.uk with an email address that she can contact you at? All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. When you recently edited List of British supercentenarians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln and William Grant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. When you recently edited List of centenarians (sportspeople), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Mr Universe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SiameseTurtle/Twins
User:SiameseTurtle/Twins, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SiameseTurtle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:SiameseTurtle/Twins during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
I know I'm not on this site hardly anymore but thank you sir for having my back with these clowns who have no life and act like this issue, which is no issue at all, is a huge burden to Wikipedians. They need to worry about people typing disrespectful/distasteful comments on articles...not worry about simple lists on the elderly. Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Oldest men
Template:Oldest men has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Oldest people
Template:Oldest people has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Annie Butler for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie Butler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Annie Butler& until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EEng (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of supercentenarians from kansas listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of supercentenarians from kansas. Since you had some involvement with the List of supercentenarians from kansas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
This is a warning that you're bordering on WP:3RR at List of oldest living people. Please find consensus on the talk page before reverting further. clpo13(talk) 23:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I am doing as suggested by Wikipedia guidelines. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, consider posting your concerns to WP:BLPN per WP:3RRBLP. Three editors have contested your claim that the rankings are inappropriate, so I advise you to start looking for consensus instead of edit warring. BLP is not a shield. clpo13(talk) 23:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kama Chinen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kama Chinen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kama Chinen& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  16:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret Fish for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Fish is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Margaret Fish until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Elsie Steele for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elsie Steele is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Elsie Steele until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 17:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Annie Turnbull for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie Turnbull is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Annie Turnbull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Violet Wood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Violet Wood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Violet Wood until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Grace Jones (supercentenarian) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grace Jones (supercentenarian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Grace Jones (supercentenarian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 18:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kama Chinen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kama Chinen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kama Chinen& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 04:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Stanley Lucas for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stanley Lucas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stanley Lucas& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hannah Smith (supercentenarian) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hannah Smith (supercentenarian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hannah Smith (supercentenarian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of oldest twins for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of oldest twins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG talk 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)