Talk:Jane Gray (supercentenarian)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Could someone please upload a picture for her, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.159.16 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic information removed
editI've again removed [1] details which are either redundant (# of years married, which is given in the infobox anyway) or just plain unencyclopedic, in the sense that it adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject (# of grandchildren, expressed hope to become world's oldest person, personal idea that "eating plenty" promotes longevity, etc.). Please note the requirements of WP:ONUS:
- While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
EEng (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article". The material has been reinserted by multiple editors and there is no genuine "dispute" here as to the validity or the encyclopedic nature of the content, just one editor edit warring to gut the article. Your edit has been reverted; Make your case that consensus supports removal of this material. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the sentence now bolded above. As to your edit summary here [2], you're confusing two different kinds of situations. In the one to which your edit summary refers, the question was one of verification versus verifiability, whereas here it's WP:ONUS, as already pointed out. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't miss anything. A whimpering child stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum does not constitute a "dispute" with Mommy and Daddy about bedtime or in Wikipedia regarding content. The multiple editors restoring the material that you have arbitrarily removed on several occasions, with editors supporting the restorations of the reliable and verifiable sourced content is the consensus you seek. The ONUS requirement has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- A 2-against-1 tagteam doesn't constitute consensus, which comes from reasoned discussion. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Tagteam? Now *you* have to prove that there is a coordinated effort against you *and* that you have consensus to remove this content. The ONUS is on you now. Alansohn (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- A 2-against-1 tagteam doesn't constitute consensus, which comes from reasoned discussion. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't miss anything. A whimpering child stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum does not constitute a "dispute" with Mommy and Daddy about bedtime or in Wikipedia regarding content. The multiple editors restoring the material that you have arbitrarily removed on several occasions, with editors supporting the restorations of the reliable and verifiable sourced content is the consensus you seek. The ONUS requirement has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed the sentence now bolded above. As to your edit summary here [2], you're confusing two different kinds of situations. In the one to which your edit summary refers, the question was one of verification versus verifiability, whereas here it's WP:ONUS, as already pointed out. Welcome to Wikipedia. EEng (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like typical unencyclopedic longevity fluff to me. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jane Gray (supercentenarian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grg.org%2FAdams%2FE.HTM&date=2007-12-01 to http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)