User talk:Ryoung122/Archive3

Supercentenarians

I had to sift through your compaints to wikipedia management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.

First of all, if I make a mthematical error or a mistake on somebody's page. It's an error, that's what it is. Considering the less than thurough ways in which you've been updating pages (you didn't even try to fix the succession boxes) you don't have much room to complain to management. I looked back and realized I made a mistake with Thomas Peters death date. I guess you've never made a mistake in your life. Also, Thomas Peter's didn't have a page before I put it up so when it comes to him at least I made an attemp to bring more information to wikipedia. The mistake about Jeane Klement reaching 120 years 238 days on Oct 17 1995 (not Oct 4 1995) was a mistake I DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED MUSELF!!!! yet you felt the need to complain about it.

Secondly... nice teamwork. Thanks for taking me seriously. Here I am, willing to help organize the information you provided (because even I know that you are the expert in this and not me) and you spit in my face. I apreciate it. Maybe I'll send a letter to your superiors at Guinness since you feel so comfortable representing them in this fasion.

I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized.--Dr who1975 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read over your detailed response. Part of my point is that this not a job. That was the nature of my "threats" to take it to your higher ups. You wouldn't do it at a job so why would you do it here. I’m doing it in my spare time too.

I hadn't talked to you because, as I said in my message "I tried looking for you when all this started with Bart but I didn't realize the R was capitalized". I tend to try to talk to people on wikipedia.

I will try to avoid spelling mistakes in the future (maybe paste my stuff into MS word before hitting save) but if you see a mistake you can correct it yourself you know. That's the beauty of wikipedia. It's not like I'm going to come back with a reversal and go "THAT MISTAKE WAS INETNTIONAL". Sorry if the errors bug you. You could've also pointed them out to me before going to other people too you know... although that takes more work than just fixing them.

"It's Dr Evil. I didn't go to evil medical school so you could call me Mr."-Dr. Evil

--Dr who1975 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welp... you;ve had ample time to respond and i don;t see anything. Thanks for your input anyway.--Dr who1975 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest person

As I understand you, the passport may be based on false statements, anyway thanks for pointing out. Is it the same case as another Azeri, Shirali Muslimov, who as I heard and read, died at 160? --Brand спойт 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Hi,

Your conduct with respect to me in the debate over Mr. Pata is completely unacceptable. Check my user page for my credentials, including an MA in history. Even if I had no credentials, your tone is totally inappropriate. Had I come across your comment directed at someone else, I would have given you a 12 hour-block for a civility violation. You had no reason to speak in that manner, and the only defects on display were your own. Please reconsider the manner in which you relate to others. Xoloz 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please place the comment in his talk page instead of his userpage, where it is likely (and was) reverted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

Hey. By any chance could you add in a referece of his passing if it's true? I'm sure there would be something in the paper in a couple days, not sure if you have any proof or not now though. Based on your contributions I believe your claim, others may not though. --Wizardman 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello to All,

Granddaddy Moses Hardy passed away gently in his sleep this morning. On yesterday, he was very active and talkative, however this morning God quietly called him home. Thank you very much for including him in all your research and news reports. May God richly bless you all and your families. MOSES HARDY - January 6, 1893 - December 7, 2006.

Sincerely Rickey R. Davis → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep an eye on the newsreels for somethign to put up. The WOP yahoo group confirms his death as well, sadly. --Wizardman 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's logical, my dear friend, since Robert Douglas Young is its moderator, hence. Extremely sexy 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hardy lives in rural Mississippi. The AP office is closed for the night. Nonetheless, the source is the grandson, which seems very reliable.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bolden

This message is regarding your edits to Elizabeth Bolden. Can you please update the infobox?? Georgia guy 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seher Bulut

I see, but those facts about her aren't correct. She was born in 1883 Adilcevaz/Bitlis where she currently lives. She has 12 children one of the oldest is 91 years old and 250 grand-children. She is still alive as far as I know. Ajda 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Turkish or something. Her oldest son is 91 years old so her first child was born in 1915 . That's to say she was 32 years old. Yes, that's an older age for her. But it's not that difficult to guess why. The worst period of Turkish history was between 1880 - 1923. There were a lot battles occured and hundred thousands of men and even women died. Moreover, Armenians have killed millions of people where she currently lives. So it was not that easy having children under such difficult conditions. However, I don't care about if her name is at the list or not. Sincerely. Ajda 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning of specific demographic in opening paragraph

I want to start off by saying Emporis is a great site, and please keep up the good work. Regarding the introductory paragraph of Fort Lauderdale, I feel it is inappropriate to mention demographics. It is especially inappropriate to mention a single demographic. For example, to mention solely that there are a lot of white/black/asian/hispanic/jewish/christian/republican/democrat etc.. is a clear attempt to influence culture. It is true that an author of Rainbow Travel, a sub website of The Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Business Bureau, has the agenda of targeting a demographic to improve local business. I think that is great, but that agenda should not be placed on the opening paragraph of Fort Lauderdale's description. There is no demographic that dominates the city's culture and population, so that information should be left in the Demographic section along with the others. -rstepp

Philip Mayne

Please, do vote against the proposed removal of the article about him here. Extremely sexy 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Living?

Very unlikely.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Harold Luhnow 1895-?

OK he died in 1978. Fixed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ray Bennion 1896-?

• Alan McGlashan 1899-?

The article says he died in 1996!→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But only at the very end: confusing. Extremely sexy 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Can you fix the links in your signature? The talk and contributions go to Ryoung (talk · contribs · count), not Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · count)...and that particular Ryoung has no contributions. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks later and you still haven't fixed this. Please do so. Syrthiss 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mt. View

Sorry. A mcmurray 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Dalby Springs, Texas, while it had some kind of reference, in the body of the text is still nothing more than a blanket copy of the content from that reference, even if it is in quotes, you can't just copy info from another site and put it here, at least the way I understand it. If you want to keep it you should probably reword and cite it using proper inline citations, otherwise drop it on the talk page until someone else wants to.A mcmurray 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious distinction

Surely the "dubious distinction" is the fact that Emma Tillman now has the shortest tenure as the eldest person in the world, not the fact that the thirteen days during which Miyoto became the world's oldest person is somehow disputed. This is the reason why I made this edit to reflect this. Please let me know your opinion. Bobo. 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest people

You're right, though I would have considered the dubious distinction to be the record of "shortest tenure", rather than the irony of immediate death without the possibility, for example, of reference books such as Guinness being able to report this in anything but Wiki-esque statistics which alter immediately as they are reported rather than in a yearly almanac. It's pleasing to know the record still exists in spite of the impossibly short time that it would survive, and still be factually accurate, in a reference book, and that for the short time between the reports of the deaths of del Toro and Tillman, this was recorded on Wikipedia.

I've always felt proud that people such as yourself who record such things as happening immediately as they do, particularly from such wide sources, having to scour the globe for new title-holders, such as.. the Ecuadorian woman whose name I've forgotten who was discovered alive born in 1889, prior to her death.. this is something that makes the field of such a worldwide interest such an enjoyable activity to uphold.

I'm glad that the distinction of shortest tenure still exists, though I'd still only equate dubiety with dispute, say, if her birthdate was believed to have been reported incorrectly or similar, to the fact that the record was indeed, beyond any reasonable doubt, Tillman's for the shortest time. As such, I've rephrased that final paragraph to satisfy how I believe it should be phrased. Please view this and voice your opinion, and if necessary, feel free to change it back, and I promise not to alter it back if you do so. Thank you for messaging me back. Bobo. 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 said: Ok, I suppose the new wording is more clinically correct, though now blanched of any judgment (which is, to some, a good thing). But if I were writing a book, I'd use 'dubious' distinction for two reasons:

Obviously, if a titleholder held the title for only a week or two, their reign lacked in confidence or assurance. Also, the younger and shorter the title, the more subject to question it would be (it would be easier to find a 115-year-old that is real, than to find a real 123-year-old).

But one thing about Wikipedia is that it is the sum total of every contributor, not a personal work. Thus, I will go with your revision (although not your first version) as a compromise. The newer version is, ironically, less dubious in meaning than the old one.

Thank you very much. I can now understand your willingness to include dubiety as a factor in the eldest person statistics. I am fine with the first version being discarded, as I'm certainly more pleased with my second revision of the page.

As for the questionability of the shortness of each tenure the current title holder, I would certainly agree with your analysis of the difficulty in recording the new title holders and, if worst comes to worst, the heir(s) to the throne(s). Thank you for your input, as I think this will mean that we can leave the phrasing as is for the time being. Bobo. 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Living centenarians?

1. born 1897 - Sudhakar Chaturvedi
2. born 1901 - Sona Babai
3. born 1903 - Ramon A. Estella
4. born 1905 - Óscar del Rosario
5. born 1905 - Paco Zamora
6. born 1906 - John Wilkinson Taylor, Victor S. Johnson, Jr., Henry Evans Maude, Clarrie O'Shea, Horst von Möllendorff, Carmen Concha,
7. born 1907 - Salome Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Arthur Young (policeman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.181.75 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Witness Lee

In regards to the below article:

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

I suggest a layer of protection from unregistered users. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to provide an informative, encyclopaedic entry about a subject. However, some Christian fundamentalist apologists see this as a way to conduct religious war instead. Notably, the continued attempted addition of:

On January 8, 2007, more than 60 evangelical scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations issued an unprecedented public appeal to the leadership of Living Stream and the "local churches" (available here), asking them to disavow and withdraw controversial statements made by Witness Lee on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man. is way off-base.

Reasons:

1. No news citation or other source. 2. Use of biased words such as 'unprecedented' 3. Witness Lee died in 1997 and has nothing to do with the current lawsuit 4. Any religious position can be seen as 'controversial' by those that don't believe it 5. Stacking the deck bias...most of the '60' are NOT NOTABLE and in fact this appears to be a coordinated effort, akin to politics. We could easily get a petition of '60 concerned scholars' who oppose the war in Iraq. Such a petition is not newsworthy unless covered by a major news source, which in that case would at the very least allow for an editing. Prior attempts to compromise by editing out words such as 'unprecedented' have been met with reverts and no compromise attempted. 6. Bad intent The purpose/goal seems to be to pressure the local churches/LSM to modify their personal beliefs to accord with said outside pressure. This is akin to the Inquisition, Salem Witchcraft Trials, or the burning at the stake of Christian protestants in the 1500's. The Catholic church was free to excommunicate Martin Luther, but to go further by burning people at the stake for being a member of a different faith is in fact one of the worst attacks on freedom in all of humanity. It seems that the battle for the mind is only challenged by the battle for earthly resources as to which is worse.

Thus, it appears that the Witness Lee article is under bad-faith attack from those who put their own personal biases ahead of the principles of being a Wikipedian...not surprising considering the edits are being done ANONYMOUSLY BY UNREGISTERED USERS. Similar controversies exist around the Local churches and Living Stream Ministry articles...controversies that have LESS to do with the local church/LSM than they do to those who prefer to preach "You're going to hell unless you're a member of our congregation." I don't see local church members telling fundamentalist Baptists what their beliefs are. To try to state what another group believes through the lens of apologism is simply unacceptable.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I have added it to my watchlist(s) and will continue to monitor its progress. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122, it would be nice if you would provide some clue as to what your motivations are for repeatedly reverting my recent edits to the Witness Lee article. You have reverted my edits three times without providing any explanation, despite repeated requests to do so in my own edit summaries. IMO, the edits are obvious improvements in NPOV, as they remove opinionated words and unsourced speculative rationales for the actions of third-party people who would clearly disagree with the provided characterizations of their actions. —Wookipedian 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed al Wasimy

Born in 1875, and still living? => http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Wasimy, http://newsfromrussia.com/society/2005/08/12/61237.html, http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/newsissues/081205/index.asp?page=AroundWorld4.

This goes in the 'space alien' category of believability.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Marcus00.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marcus00.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruz Hernández

Thanks for creating the article Cruz Hernández in the first place. If you hadn't, I would have. If you revert it or edit it, please do not revert to your original version (of last May 2006), because in so doing, you remove citations and external links, and re-introduce too much skepticism (i.e. POV). If documentation was not sent to WBGR or The Gerontology Group or whatever, then improve or remove that sentence only (I didn't add that particular sentence, and can't vouch for its accuracy). Also, please, prove beyond doubt to every reader of Wikipedia your age and exact date of birth before proceeding (just kidding). 69.149.165.203 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one I have to say. Extremely sexy 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so stupid. Age 128 has never been proven, ever. It's like claiming to have found life on the Moon. Merely expecting someone to provide proof for the all-time record hardly constitutes being unreasonable. Writing slanted/biased stories to sell more papers at the expense of the truth? Well that's up to you to decide.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta I-75 charter bus accident

I noticed you left a message in the discussion of the Atlanta I-75 Charter Bus Accident article. Zach Arend in fact died from injuries, but he died from the result of the bus accident (that was why he was injured - because of the bus accident). I changed it anyway. Personally, I believe the ones who passed away did so as a a result of the accident. Tell me what you think at the discussion. (unsigned comment)

It was just a semantic issue. To say '7 killed in the bus' would not be accurate. To say '7 died as a result of the bus accident' would be.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hryhoriy Nestor

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1503676,69,item.html and http://svet.ihned.cz/c4-10030270-20496470-003100_d-za-mocnarstvi-se-na-ukrajine-zilo-nejlip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.183.72 (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that the Nestor camp have been given opportunity to submit documentation on his claim, but have not yet done so.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to www.ami-tass.ru records were filled to Guinness World Records. But even without this - Wikipedia is not a publisher of Guinness Records, as those seems to be incorrect sometimes. --TAG 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your signature

Your signature, as you've modified it, points to User talk:RYoung rather than this page, and the pointer to your contributions is similarly incorrect. Please correct this immediately.

I am going to move the comments that have been incorrectly posted at User talk:RYoung, to this page, and am going to put a redirect in place that (hopefully) will prevent future comments from being posted to that page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Veracity

I don't appreciate your impugning my veracity. What possible reason do I have to make any of this up? Money? Glory?

Furthermore, I didn't erase anything. 00:46, 26 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEF Doughboy (talk • contribs)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour

You aren't really assuming good faith, now are you? I don't know nor do i care about the race of this person. I came across her when I was sorting {{Africa-bio-stub}}, not as a result of any personal attack. I'll have you know that I have pushed through dozens of Africa nation stubs and templates and spent hours hand sorting them, as well as writing dozens of new entries for african politicians, athletes and other notable places that should be included, for example, see Islam in Mozambique. I think that any article based on someone because of their age, possibly short of the "the oldest" person, should be deleted. If you nominated those people for Afd, I'd happily discuss in favor of deletion. --Thomas.macmillan 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• After reading your personal attack on the Afd board, I just want to say something to your racist assumption that I am of English ancestry. My mother is 100% French ancestry. My father is of mixed Scottish, Irish and English ancestry with also a little bit of Native American. Wikipedia is not the place to work out your anger against supposed Anglo's. Personal attacks will stop or an administrator will be notified.--Thomas.macmillan 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize you actually were an AGEIST, not a RACIST. That you think an article you know nothing about should be deleted because of age, is simple AGEIST bias.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David Allen Lambert

You can nominate the article for WP:AFD. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez (talk)

I "have an agenda?" I notice others have also noted you not assuming good faith. Interesting. --Beth C. 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Matt Sanchez article and the lack of balance:

My Salon article draws comparisons between myself and Rich Merritt and Jeff Gannon. I don't deny those similarities as I have since spoken to both men. Jeff Gannon used a military identity to portray himself as an escort and was avowed Republican. There are some striking similarities between us, but we are very different and have had very different career paths. My "I don't deny it" statement speaks to those similarities. Your statements or accusations are unfounded.

The article should also include how homosexuals have come out against me since I stated VERY CLEARLY that I am not gay, and denounced pornography in general. Bluemarine 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility

Please do not defend yourself by pointing to what you consider to be failings of others. If other editors, like me, believe that some of your comments are inappropriate, please examine your own comments and see if you can (a) see the problem and (b) commit to fixing that.

Consider the following:

• Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist. WP:CIVIL and other guidelines here say Comment on content, not contributors. I personally don't care what editors are, I care what they do. I strongly advise you to change your attitude on this; you're heading toward being blocked.

• Porn is prostitution. No, it's not. That's why there are two different words, for two different things. Insisting that they are the same is a violation of WP:NPOV.

• Mr. Sanchez claims that 'porn is prostitution'. Even if he did, it doesn't matter, unless that's a direct quote from an article, and then it's only possibly relevant as far as whether it's useful to be in the biography here at Wikipedia.

Regarding I have so far given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you would be a partial administrator of the 'Matt Sanchez' debate, I'm not an administrator (there are roughly a thousand editors who are), and the correct word is impartial, not partial. And I have no commitment whatsoever to refereeing this argument; like you, I have a real life and limited time for Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I had cited references of uncivility and you had 'excuses' such as 'I have a real life,' I'd say it is you who were being 'partial.' I rest my case.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second request

I am AGAIN requesting that you fix your signature (see section above). If you have some reason why you believe what you're doing is acceptable, please inform me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(from my talk page, using this header because (1) it's the bottom of your talk and (2) it's the same subject)

Ryoung, currently your signature has the following structure:

[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>}

So what that means is that anytime someone clicks on your yak in your sig to talk to you, they are instead being sent to User talk:RYoung... To fix it, click on "my preferences" at the top of any page when you are logged in, and on the first panel in the signature box replace the above with this:

[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>}

Does that help? Syrthiss 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Thanks for the clear, easy-to-follow instructions instead of the usual 'for the last time' approach some people take. Let me know if it is not working, but I think it is fixed. R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

Hi RYoung, I noticed that you added George Francis to the list of the ten oldest currently living men on the oldest people page. Do you have any outside link or source for George Francis? I can't find one anywhere. Regards, Rrsmac 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/6872R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid AfD to be dealth with immediately

Please, do vote as well over here. Extremely sexy 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Bart

The last words of your message sound like a threat. I'm sure that wasn't your intention and that Bart's behaviour has just irritated you into an indiscreet comment. I invite you to amend your post as quickly as possible. Thanks. --Dweller 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point on two levels. I know he's behaved badly. No need for you to do similarly. Furthermore, you look bad for appearing to threaten. Whether you can or will carry out a threat is irrelevant. Why lower yourself to someone else's level? --Dweller 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not Winston Churchill and Bart editing other peoples' talk page comments isn't Hitlereque behaviour. Calm down. Bart is out of line and will be admonished (again) but your comment will land you in hot water should he make a complaint. If you want to ignore my well-meant advice, that's your prerogative. --Dweller 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One, I do not edit what other people write on comment pages. Two, I do not use foul or profane language or call people names. Three, I do not believe suggesting that there is consequences for breaking rules is out of line or inappropriate behavior. If it is, then there is no point in having rules and my fair response would then be to re-write...i.e. 'vandalize'...what Bart writes. I do not see that as a positive option. Hence, I took the high road (proper language and procedure) instead of responding with in-kind vandalism. But this just proves my point that holding one to a 'higher' standard really allows others to get away with what they shouldn't.

Bart is "addicted" to having his own way, even to the point of re-writing the writing of others. While this often involves minor issues, it often becomes difficult to undo what he writes because by then, a third party has added some new material elsewhere. Also, the sheer volume and intensity (over a period of several years) is enough to at least expect a 'warning' (a warning is not a threat: warnings take the tack of proper procedures, threats do not). It is definitely counterproductive for me to go back and undo what he writes at the expense of undoing the work of a third-party contributor as well. Nonetheless, the result is that what I did NOT write is left to appear as if I had written it. That is the entire point. I stand by what I wrote (including the message to Bart using the word "consequences"). Saying "I'm going to kill person X" is a threat. Saying "continued violation of the rules will result in consequences" is NOT a threat. R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oldest Estonian

You didn't find the verify about the Estonian Oldest Person Maria Tomson and deleted it, - this source is in Estonian [1], (1966 was the Soviet time in Estonia).Kask 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper report is not documentation.R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle names.

You told me the middle names of the oldest person in the world in Oldest People was unnecessary (for Elizabeth Alice Kensley), so that contradicts people like Josefa Salas Mateo and John Mosely Turner. And we know Anna Eliza Williams is from Wales. Neal 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use "Moseley". I use the other two because that's what was written in the Guinness Book.R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

I had to sift through your compaints to wikipedia management to figure out what was going on and I have a few comments.

First of all, if I make a mthematical error or a mistake on somebody's page. It's an error, that's what it is. Considering the less than thurough ways in which you've been updating pages (you didn't even try to fix the succession boxes) you don't have much room to complain to management. I looked back and realized I made a mistake with Thomas Peters death date. I guess you've never made a mistake in your life. Also, Thomas Peter's didn't have a page before I put it up so when it comes to him at least I made an attemp to bring more information to wikipedia. The mistake about Jeane Klement reaching 120 years 238 days on Oct 17 1995 (not Oct 4 1995) was a mistake I DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED MUSELF!!!! yet you felt the need to complain about it.

Secondly... nice teamwork. Thanks for taking me seriously. Here I am, willing to help organize the information you provided (because even I know that you are the expert in this and not me) and you spit in my face. I apreciate it. Maybe I'll send a letter to your superiors at Guinness since you feel so comfortable representing them in this fasion.

I tried looking for you when all this strated with Bart but I didn;t realize the R was capitalized.--Dr who1975 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read over your detailed response. Part of my point is that this not a job. That was the nature of my "threats" to take it to your higher ups. You wouldn't do it at a job so why would you do it here. I’m doing it in my spare time too.

I hadn't talked to you because, as I said in my message "I tried looking for you when all this started with Bart but I didn't realize the R was capitalized". I tend to try to talk to people on wikipedia.

I will try to avoid spelling mistakes in the future (maybe paste my stuff into MS word before hitting save) but if you see a mistake you can correct it yourself you know. That's the beauty of wikipedia. It's not like I'm going to come back with a reversal and go "THAT MISTAKE WAS INETNTIONAL". Sorry if the errors bug you. You could've also pointed them out to me before going to other people too you know... although that takes more work than just fixing them.

"It's Dr Evil. I didn't go to evil medical school so you could call me Mr."-Dr. Evil

--Dr who1975 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Welp... you;ve had ample time to respond and i don;t see anything. Thanks for your input anyway.--Dr who1975 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest person

As I understand you, the passport may be based on false statements, anyway thanks for pointing out. Is it the same case as another Azeri, Shirali Muslimov, who as I heard and read, died at 160? --Brand спойт 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Hi,

Your conduct with respect to me in the debate over Mr. Pata is completely unacceptable. Check my user page for my credentials, including an MA in history. Even if I had no credentials, your tone is totally inappropriate. Had I come across your comment directed at someone else, I would have given you a 12 hour-block for a civility violation. You had no reason to speak in that manner, and the only defects on display were your own. Please reconsider the manner in which you relate to others. Xoloz 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please place the comment in his talk page instead of his userpage, where it is likely (and was) reverted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moses Hardy

Hey. By any chance could you add in a referece of his passing if it's true? I'm sure there would be something in the paper in a couple days, not sure if you have any proof or not now though. Based on your contributions I believe your claim, others may not though. --Wizardman 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello to All,

Granddaddy Moses Hardy passed away gently in his sleep this morning. On yesterday, he was very active and talkative, however this morning God quietly called him home. Thank you very much for including him in all your research and news reports. May God richly bless you all and your families. MOSES HARDY - January 6, 1893 - December 7, 2006.

Sincerely Rickey R. Davis → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep an eye on the newsreels for somethign to put up. The WOP yahoo group confirms his death as well, sadly. --Wizardman 05:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's logical, my dear friend, since Robert Douglas Young is its moderator, hence. Extremely sexy 11:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hardy lives in rural Mississippi. The AP office is closed for the night. Nonetheless, the source is the grandson, which seems very reliable.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bolden

This message is regarding your edits to Elizabeth Bolden. Can you please update the infobox?? Georgia guy 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seher Bulut

I see, but those facts about her aren't correct. She was born in 1883 Adilcevaz/Bitlis where she currently lives. She has 12 children one of the oldest is 91 years old and 250 grand-children. She is still alive as far as I know. Ajda 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being Turkish or something. Her oldest son is 91 years old so her first child was born in 1915 . That's to say she was 32 years old. Yes, that's an older age for her. But it's not that difficult to guess why. The worst period of Turkish history was between 1880 - 1923. There were a lot battles occured and hundred thousands of men and even women died. Moreover, Armenians have killed millions of people where she currently lives. So it was not that easy having children under such difficult conditions. However, I don't care about if her name is at the list or not. Sincerely. Ajda 00:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning of specific demographic in opening paragraph

I want to start off by saying Emporis is a great site, and please keep up the good work. Regarding the introductory paragraph of Fort Lauderdale, I feel it is inappropriate to mention demographics. It is especially inappropriate to mention a single demographic. For example, to mention solely that there are a lot of white/black/asian/hispanic/jewish/christian/republican/democrat etc.. is a clear attempt to influence culture. It is true that an author of Rainbow Travel, a sub website of The Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Business Bureau, has the agenda of targeting a demographic to improve local business. I think that is great, but that agenda should not be placed on the opening paragraph of Fort Lauderdale's description. There is no demographic that dominates the city's culture and population, so that information should be left in the Demographic section along with the others. -rstepp

Philip Mayne

Please, do vote against the proposed removal of the article about him here. Extremely sexy 15:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Living?

Very unlikely.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Harold Luhnow 1895-?

OK he died in 1978. Fixed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ray Bennion 1896-?

• Alan McGlashan 1899-?

The article says he died in 1996!→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But only at the very end: confusing. Extremely sexy 12:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Can you fix the links in your signature? The talk and contributions go to Ryoung (talk · contribs · count), not Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · count)...and that particular Ryoung has no contributions. Thanks! Syrthiss 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks later and you still haven't fixed this. Please do so. Syrthiss 12:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mt. View

Sorry. A mcmurray 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article Dalby Springs, Texas, while it had some kind of reference, in the body of the text is still nothing more than a blanket copy of the content from that reference, even if it is in quotes, you can't just copy info from another site and put it here, at least the way I understand it. If you want to keep it you should probably reword and cite it using proper inline citations, otherwise drop it on the talk page until someone else wants to.A mcmurray 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious distinction

Surely the "dubious distinction" is the fact that Emma Tillman now has the shortest tenure as the eldest person in the world, not the fact that the thirteen days during which Miyoto became the world's oldest person is somehow disputed. This is the reason why I made this edit to reflect this. Please let me know your opinion. Bobo. 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest people

You're right, though I would have considered the dubious distinction to be the record of "shortest tenure", rather than the irony of immediate death without the possibility, for example, of reference books such as Guinness being able to report this in anything but Wiki-esque statistics which alter immediately as they are reported rather than in a yearly almanac. It's pleasing to know the record still exists in spite of the impossibly short time that it would survive, and still be factually accurate, in a reference book, and that for the short time between the reports of the deaths of del Toro and Tillman, this was recorded on Wikipedia.

I've always felt proud that people such as yourself who record such things as happening immediately as they do, particularly from such wide sources, having to scour the globe for new title-holders, such as.. the Ecuadorian woman whose name I've forgotten who was discovered alive born in 1889, prior to her death.. this is something that makes the field of such a worldwide interest such an enjoyable activity to uphold.

I'm glad that the distinction of shortest tenure still exists, though I'd still only equate dubiety with dispute, say, if her birthdate was believed to have been reported incorrectly or similar, to the fact that the record was indeed, beyond any reasonable doubt, Tillman's for the shortest time. As such, I've rephrased that final paragraph to satisfy how I believe it should be phrased. Please view this and voice your opinion, and if necessary, feel free to change it back, and I promise not to alter it back if you do so. Thank you for messaging me back. Bobo. 02:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung122 said: Ok, I suppose the new wording is more clinically correct, though now blanched of any judgment (which is, to some, a good thing). But if I were writing a book, I'd use 'dubious' distinction for two reasons:

Obviously, if a titleholder held the title for only a week or two, their reign lacked in confidence or assurance. Also, the younger and shorter the title, the more subject to question it would be (it would be easier to find a 115-year-old that is real, than to find a real 123-year-old).

But one thing about Wikipedia is that it is the sum total of every contributor, not a personal work. Thus, I will go with your revision (although not your first version) as a compromise. The newer version is, ironically, less dubious in meaning than the old one.

Thank you very much. I can now understand your willingness to include dubiety as a factor in the eldest person statistics. I am fine with the first version being discarded, as I'm certainly more pleased with my second revision of the page.

As for the questionability of the shortness of each tenure the current title holder, I would certainly agree with your analysis of the difficulty in recording the new title holders and, if worst comes to worst, the heir(s) to the throne(s). Thank you for your input, as I think this will mean that we can leave the phrasing as is for the time being. Bobo. 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Living centenarians?

1. born 1897 - Sudhakar Chaturvedi
2. born 1901 - Sona Babai
3. born 1903 - Ramon A. Estella
4. born 1905 - Óscar del Rosario
5. born 1905 - Paco Zamora
6. born 1906 - John Wilkinson Taylor, Victor S. Johnson, Jr., Henry Evans Maude, Clarrie O'Shea, Horst von Möllendorff, Carmen Concha,
7. born 1907 - Salome Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Arthur Young (policeman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.181.75 (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Witness Lee

In regards to the below article:

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

I suggest a layer of protection from unregistered users. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to provide an informative, encyclopaedic entry about a subject. However, some Christian fundamentalist apologists see this as a way to conduct religious war instead. Notably, the continued attempted addition of:

On January 8, 2007, more than 60 evangelical scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations issued an unprecedented public appeal to the leadership of Living Stream and the "local churches" (available here), asking them to disavow and withdraw controversial statements made by Witness Lee on the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man. is way off-base.

Reasons:

1. No news citation or other source. 2. Use of biased words such as 'unprecedented' 3. Witness Lee died in 1997 and has nothing to do with the current lawsuit 4. Any religious position can be seen as 'controversial' by those that don't believe it 5. Stacking the deck bias...most of the '60' are NOT NOTABLE and in fact this appears to be a coordinated effort, akin to politics. We could easily get a petition of '60 concerned scholars' who oppose the war in Iraq. Such a petition is not newsworthy unless covered by a major news source, which in that case would at the very least allow for an editing. Prior attempts to compromise by editing out words such as 'unprecedented' have been met with reverts and no compromise attempted. 6. Bad intent The purpose/goal seems to be to pressure the local churches/LSM to modify their personal beliefs to accord with said outside pressure. This is akin to the Inquisition, Salem Witchcraft Trials, or the burning at the stake of Christian protestants in the 1500's. The Catholic church was free to excommunicate Martin Luther, but to go further by burning people at the stake for being a member of a different faith is in fact one of the worst attacks on freedom in all of humanity. It seems that the battle for the mind is only challenged by the battle for earthly resources as to which is worse.

Thus, it appears that the Witness Lee article is under bad-faith attack from those who put their own personal biases ahead of the principles of being a Wikipedian...not surprising considering the edits are being done ANONYMOUSLY BY UNREGISTERED USERS. Similar controversies exist around the Local churches and Living Stream Ministry articles...controversies that have LESS to do with the local church/LSM than they do to those who prefer to preach "You're going to hell unless you're a member of our congregation." I don't see local church members telling fundamentalist Baptists what their beliefs are. To try to state what another group believes through the lens of apologism is simply unacceptable.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. I have added it to my watchlist(s) and will continue to monitor its progress. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed al Wasimy

Born in 1875, and still living? => http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_al_Wasimy, http://newsfromrussia.com/society/2005/08/12/61237.html, http://www.kidsnewsroom.org/newsissues/081205/index.asp?page=AroundWorld4.

This goes in the 'space alien' category of believability.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Marcus00.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Marcus00.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruz Hernández

Thanks for creating the article Cruz Hernández in the first place. If you hadn't, I would have. If you revert it or edit it, please do not revert to your original version (of last May 2006), because in so doing, you remove citations and external links, and re-introduce too much skepticism (i.e. POV). If documentation was not sent to WBGR or The Gerontology Group or whatever, then improve or remove that sentence only (I didn't add that particular sentence, and can't vouch for its accuracy). Also, please, prove beyond doubt to every reader of Wikipedia your age and exact date of birth before proceeding (just kidding). 69.149.165.203 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one I have to say. Extremely sexy 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so stupid. Age 128 has never been proven, ever. It's like claiming to have found life on the Moon. Merely expecting someone to provide proof for the all-time record hardly constitutes being unreasonable. Writing slanted/biased stories to sell more papers at the expense of the truth? Well that's up to you to decide.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta I-75 charter bus accident

I noticed you left a message in the discussion of the Atlanta I-75 Charter Bus Accident article. Zach Arend in fact died from injuries, but he died from the result of the bus accident (that was why he was injured - because of the bus accident). I changed it anyway. Personally, I believe the ones who passed away did so as a a result of the accident. Tell me what you think at the discussion. (unsigned comment)

It was just a semantic issue. To say '7 killed in the bus' would not be accurate. To say '7 died as a result of the bus accident' would be.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hryhoriy Nestor

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1503676,69,item.html and http://svet.ihned.cz/c4-10030270-20496470-003100_d-za-mocnarstvi-se-na-ukrajine-zilo-nejlip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.183.72 (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please note that the Nestor camp have been given opportunity to submit documentation on his claim, but have not yet done so.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to www.ami-tass.ru records were filled to Guinness World Records. But even without this - Wikipedia is not a publisher of Guinness Records, as those seems to be incorrect sometimes. --TAG 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your signature

Your signature, as you've modified it, points to User talk:RYoung rather than this page, and the pointer to your contributions is similarly incorrect. Please correct this immediately.

I am going to move the comments that have been incorrectly posted at User talk:RYoung, to this page, and am going to put a redirect in place that (hopefully) will prevent future comments from being posted to that page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Veracity

I don't appreciate your impugning my veracity. What possible reason do I have to make any of this up? Money? Glory?

Furthermore, I didn't erase anything. 00:46, 26 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEF Doughboy (talk • contribs)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour

You aren't really assuming good faith, now are you? I don't know nor do i care about the race of this person. I came across her when I was sorting {{Africa-bio-stub}}, not as a result of any personal attack. I'll have you know that I have pushed through dozens of Africa nation stubs and templates and spent hours hand sorting them, as well as writing dozens of new entries for african politicians, athletes and other notable places that should be included, for example, see Islam in Mozambique. I think that any article based on someone because of their age, possibly short of the "the oldest" person, should be deleted. If you nominated those people for Afd, I'd happily discuss in favor of deletion. --Thomas.macmillan 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• After reading your personal attack on the Afd board, I just want to say something to your racist assumption that I am of English ancestry. My mother is 100% French ancestry. My father is of mixed Scottish, Irish and English ancestry with also a little bit of Native American. Wikipedia is not the place to work out your anger against supposed Anglo's. Personal attacks will stop or an administrator will be notified.--Thomas.macmillan 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize you actually were an AGEIST, not a RACIST. That you think an article you know nothing about should be deleted because of age, is simple AGEIST bias.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

David Allen Lambert

You can nominate the article for WP:AFD. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez (talk)

I "have an agenda?" I notice others have also noted you not assuming good faith. Interesting. --Beth C. 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Matt Sanchez article and the lack of balance:

My Salon article draws comparisons between myself and Rich Merritt and Jeff Gannon. I don't deny those similarities as I have since spoken to both men. Jeff Gannon used a military identity to portray himself as an escort and was avowed Republican. There are some striking similarities between us, but we are very different and have had very different career paths. My "I don't deny it" statement speaks to those similarities. Your statements or accusations are unfounded.

The article should also include how homosexuals have come out against me since I stated VERY CLEARLY that I am not gay, and denounced pornography in general. Bluemarine 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility

Please do not defend yourself by pointing to what you consider to be failings of others. If other editors, like me, believe that some of your comments are inappropriate, please examine your own comments and see if you can (a) see the problem and (b) commit to fixing that.

Consider the following:

• Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist. WP:CIVIL and other guidelines here say Comment on content, not contributors. I personally don't care what editors are, I care what they do. I strongly advise you to change your attitude on this; you're heading toward being blocked.

• Porn is prostitution. No, it's not. That's why there are two different words, for two different things. Insisting that they are the same is a violation of WP:NPOV.

• Mr. Sanchez claims that 'porn is prostitution'. Even if he did, it doesn't matter, unless that's a direct quote from an article, and then it's only possibly relevant as far as whether it's useful to be in the biography here at Wikipedia.

Regarding I have so far given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you would be a partial administrator of the 'Matt Sanchez' debate, I'm not an administrator (there are roughly a thousand editors who are), and the correct word is impartial, not partial. And I have no commitment whatsoever to refereeing this argument; like you, I have a real life and limited time for Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I had cited references of uncivility and you had 'excuses' such as 'I have a real life,' I'd say it is you who were being 'partial.' I rest my case.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second request

I am AGAIN requesting that you fix your signature (see section above). If you have some reason why you believe what you're doing is acceptable, please inform me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(from my talk page, using this header because (1) it's the bottom of your talk and (2) it's the same subject)

Ryoung, currently your signature has the following structure:

[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung|talk]]}</font>}

So what that means is that anytime someone clicks on your yak in your sig to talk to you, they are instead being sent to User talk:RYoung... To fix it, click on "my preferences" at the top of any page when you are logged in, and on the first panel in the signature box replace the above with this:

[[User:Ryoung122|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>R</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Young</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:RYoung122|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Ryoung122|talk]]}</font>}

Does that help? Syrthiss 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. Thanks for the clear, easy-to-follow instructions instead of the usual 'for the last time' approach some people take. Let me know if it is not working, but I think it is fixed. R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

Hi RYoung, I noticed that you added George Francis to the list of the ten oldest currently living men on the oldest people page. Do you have any outside link or source for George Francis? I can't find one anywhere. Regards, Rrsmac 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/6872R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Another stupid AfD to be dealth with immediately

Please, do vote as well over here. Extremely sexy 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message to Bart

The last words of your message sound like a threat. I'm sure that wasn't your intention and that Bart's behaviour has just irritated you into an indiscreet comment. I invite you to amend your post as quickly as possible. Thanks. --Dweller 09:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point on two levels. I know he's behaved badly. No need for you to do similarly. Furthermore, you look bad for appearing to threaten. Whether you can or will carry out a threat is irrelevant. Why lower yourself to someone else's level? --Dweller 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not Winston Churchill and Bart editing other peoples' talk page comments isn't Hitlereque behaviour. Calm down. Bart is out of line and will be admonished (again) but your comment will land you in hot water should he make a complaint. If you want to ignore my well-meant advice, that's your prerogative. --Dweller 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One, I do not edit what other people write on comment pages. Two, I do not use foul or profane language or call people names. Three, I do not believe suggesting that there is consequences for breaking rules is out of line or inappropriate behavior. If it is, then there is no point in having rules and my fair response would then be to re-write...i.e. 'vandalize'...what Bart writes. I do not see that as a positive option. Hence, I took the high road (proper language and procedure) instead of responding with in-kind vandalism. But this just proves my point that holding one to a 'higher' standard really allows others to get away with what they shouldn't.

Bart is "addicted" to having his own way, even to the point of re-writing the writing of others. While this often involves minor issues, it often becomes difficult to undo what he writes because by then, a third party has added some new material elsewhere. Also, the sheer volume and intensity (over a period of several years) is enough to at least expect a 'warning' (a warning is not a threat: warnings take the tack of proper procedures, threats do not). It is definitely counterproductive for me to go back and undo what he writes at the expense of undoing the work of a third-party contributor as well. Nonetheless, the result is that what I did NOT write is left to appear as if I had written it. That is the entire point. I stand by what I wrote (including the message to Bart using the word "consequences"). Saying "I'm going to kill person X" is a threat. Saying "continued violation of the rules will result in consequences" is NOT a threat. R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Oldest Estonian

You didn't find the verify about the Estonian Oldest Person Maria Tomson and deleted it, - this source is in Estonian [2], (1966 was the Soviet time in Estonia).Kask 11:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A newspaper report is not documentation.R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle names.

You told me the middle names of the oldest person in the world in Oldest People was unnecessary (for Elizabeth Alice Kensley), so that contradicts people like Josefa Salas Mateo and John Mosely Turner. And we know Anna Eliza Williams is from Wales. Neal 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use "Moseley". I use the other two because that's what was written in the Guinness Book.R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page

Contrary to my habit, I'm replying on your talk page instead of mine, that's because I'm about to erase your comments from my talk page. I don't do that often (to be more precise, to my recollection I haven't removed anything from my talk page that wasn't vandalism), but this is important to me. Have you read WP:BLP? If so, you'll know that there are strict rules for biographies of living persons. "We have a serious responsability to get things right", to quote Jimbo on that. But "getting things right" is not getting the truth out there, as paradoxal as that might sound. It is about documenting what's already stated in reliable sources. Nothing more. Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism. It's not the place for making right what's wrong in a society by outing people for whatever 'everybody knows' that they have done. I'm asking you not to repeat your claims in that article, on my talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. They were removed from the article for a reason, and that was that we've agreed not to have unsubstantiated claims like these in our articles. To be very honest, I don't care about this story. I have no opinion on what he did or didn't do. I'm not an American, and I hadn't heard about this before. I do not have any links to the person involved. So this is not about me wanting to sweep stuff under the rug, like you stated in your comment. It's about making sure our biographies are up to a certain standard, whoever the subject is. Kind regards, --JoanneB 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can have no 'kind regards' for someone who presumes themselves superior or right, while prejudging others, failing to read what was written, and then engaging in censorship and stigmatization by suggesting that a certain discussion is 'beneath' oneself. As it's been said: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire.R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Joanne,

I find your response quite disturbing, disrespectful, lacking in insight, and lacking in analyis. Basically you didn't even read what I wrote, instead 'presuming' you were right in the first place, and that you didn't want to 'touch' this with a ten-foot pole.

I did read it, and did not presume anything. -JoanneB 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, my returning back at you what you said to me may not do much good, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually READ what I write before drawing any firm conclusions (i.e. don't prejudge):

[edit] Regarding your message on my talk page Contrary to my habit, I'm replying on your talk page instead of mine, that's because I'm about to erase your comments from my talk page.

Sounds like a Biblical quote. Who made YOU GOD?R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No one did. I'm allowed to do that to my talk page, and I just wanted to explain why. --JoanneB 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't do that often (to be more precise, to my recollection I haven't removed anything from my talk page that wasn't vandalism), but this is important to me.

Rather, like someone who thinks if you don't see an animal killed, it shouldn't bother you that you are eating a hamburger. So, this is important to you. Did it ever occur to you that this is important to ME? Quit being so self-centered, and consider all points of view first.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did. And as for "Quit being so self centered" - you're judging quite a lot from just one paragraph. Are you sure you're not overreacting here?

Have you read WP:BLP?

Yes I have, although WP: AUTO states that persons aren't supposed to edit their own autobiographies, yet Matt Sanchez gleefully admits to violating that rule. Also, the facts are that even in a case where someone was famous for something else, such as Mark Foley or Bill Clinton, controversies are included when they become public debate. For persons like Matt Sanchez and Monica Lewinsky, no one would know who they were if not for the debate. Therefore, what they did or at least are alleged to have done (to be charitable) are central to their articles. In both cases, there is quite a bit of evidence to prove the allegations, and in both cases admissions of guilt were made. In fact, Mr. Sanchez has admitted more than once to the charges. He only changed his story when he found out the military was investigating for possible expulsion.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If so, you'll know that there are strict rules for biographies of living persons. "We have a serious responsability

responsibility?R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

English is my second language. I make mistakes. But yes, responsibility. --JoanneB 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

to get things right", to quote Jimbo on that. But "getting things right" is not getting the truth out there, as paradoxal as that might sound. It is about documenting what's already stated in reliable sources. Nothing more.

So Alan Colmes is not a reliable source? The US Marine Corps is not a reliable source? The FACTS of the matter are, Matt Sanchez tried very hard to insert himself into the political-cultural wars. He is not a 'private' citizen. He is someone who also appears in 40+ gay-oriented porno films (i.e. PUBLIC) and advertised himself publicly as a male escort, then admitted on Hannity and Colmes to such.

Wikipedia is not the place for investigative journalism.

The investigative journalism was done elsewhere, on web blogs. Not on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is the #1 place that people turn to to get the reliable facts, and its our duty as Wikipedians to present those FACTS when relevant.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the place for making right what's wrong in a society by outing people for whatever 'everybody knows' that they have done.

I agree that 'outing' is a controversial issue, but the facts are that there are millions of persons who engage in homosexual activities every day who are not 'outed.' Outing only tends to occur when one crosses the line: i.e. Mark Foley soliciting underage children. For many, Sanchez crossed the line when he made disparaging remarks about gay people, while he himeself was engaging in the same activities (for pay or for pleasure is a second issue; perhaps THAT is irrelevant...). Let's face it, Don Imus was subject to increased scrutiny as a result of what he said. The same can be said for Mr. Sanchez.

Ultimately, 'right' or 'wrong' is subjective; what happened is objective. Wikipedia is not the place for persons like you to self-censor what others write, for fear of people finding out the truth. In truth, we don't see a lot of people who serve as male escorts 'outed'...but we do see a unique instance here where Matt Sanchez's situation intersects with many controversial issues, including 'gays in the military' (don't ask, don't tell).R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to repeat your claims in that article,

The truth will be repeated, whether you like it or not. I don't have time right now so I won't bother with it today, but it will return in one form or another.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind, as long as it has references to reliable sources. --JoanneB 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

on my talk page

If you can't handle the truth, then you can gladly withdraw from the discussion. But not with the presumptive attitude that you are 'right' or 'superior' with you not even knowing what this case is about. At its core, this case is really about discrimination and homophobia. And though you have the right to maintain those biases privately, you don't have the right to maintain such biases publicly, and then impose them on everyone else.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can handle the truth. At the time I wrote this, the article was filled with allegations with fact tags all over them. Removing them is the first thing to do for BLP's, repeating them on talk pages is (in my view) just as bad. I do not have any biases regarding this issue, stop making this about that. It was about a lack of sources. --JoanneB 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

or anywhere else on Wikipedia. They were removed from the article for a reason,

They were removed because there is a concerted campaign by Mr. Sanchez to have this swept under the rug. In fact, this has been going on for almost two months now, with a back-and-forth. To think you can simply insert yourself into the middle, with little or no background knowledge of what has gone on before, is the height of arrogance. The FACTS of the matter include that that Mr. Sanchez's ILLEGAL activities have been documented with both IP addresses, phone numbers, web logs, etc. and that all these investigations were done OFF WIKIPEDIA. What was reported on Wikipedia merely quoted sources elsewhere.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, what was reported on Wikipedia did not quote any reliable sources when I reverted you, for a lot of the claims that were in the article. --JoanneB 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

and that was that we've agreed not to have unsubstantiated claims like these in our articles.

Since the claims were substantiated, your words ring hollow. Also, it is clear there is no agreement, and to claim there is is fallacious. There is enough evidence to convict Mr. Sanchez. At the very least, let's wait until the military concludes its investigation before determining that the charges were 'unsubstantiated.'R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To be very honest, I don't care about this story.

Then leave.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what he did or didn't do.

This is more than about opinion; it's about hypocrisy. I personally don't think what he did was that bad. However, by attempting to lie about it he actually increases the stigmatization...sort of like Roy Cohn. During the RED SCARE, Joseph McCarthy would accuse people of being "commie pinkos." That Mr. Cohn supported such comments while himself privately engaging in homosexual sex makes him a HYPOCRITE and makes his private life publicly relevant, because what he did publicly affected the lives of millions. I couldn't care less that someone advertises their services in a local gay magazine. Except that Mr Sanchez then turns around, calls gay people 'jihadists' and other insults, then denies what he previously admitted to more than once. The need to document the truth is due to Mr. Sanchez's efforts to commit malfeasance. He is also under investigation for embezzling over $12,000. A pattern of deception and lies.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an American, and I hadn't heard about this before. I do not have any links to the person involved.

I have no links to Mr. Sanchez, so I'm a third party. Mr. Sanchez is the one violating the rules by editing an article about himself.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is not about me wanting to sweep stuff under the rug, like you stated in your comment. It's about making sure our biographies are up to a certain standard, whoever the subject is. Kind regards, --JoanneB 02:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite one's ideals, Wikipedia is a 'metadata' collection of information, and standards tend to vary widely. Surely there are quite a bit of articles out there that you would find offensive. Need I point them out to you?

The real issues here are ones of hypocrisy, politicism, and distortion of the facts. Mr. Sanchez has attempted to turn his own bio page into political propaganda. While it may be argued that those against him are doing the same, was it not Mr. Sanchez that started it? In so doing, he becomes a public figure.

The bottom line: everything that was added to Wikipedia was investigated and documented elsewhere, and was relevant to the discussion. Removal of said information is [[censorship].R Young {yakłtalk} 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/03/mcsanchez070309/

First of all, your discussion style makes it very hard to follow and if possible, even harder to reply to. Second, I had not expected such hostility. Naive, perhaps. Anyway. The way I see it: you reverted to a version loaded with {{fact}} tages. That simply doesn't work. If it has been decently sourced, I'm fine with it. The version you reverted to, wasn't. Period. As you can see, I've removed one bit of information now, as that was taken from a weblog, which is not a reliable source. --JoanneB 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done some indenting, as I lost track of who wrote what. I (sincerely) hope you don't mind. As a closing comment: the content of this dispute is not what bothered me, at all. If the article had said committed any other crime, I would have done the same. Don't make this (my edit, not this issue) about hypocrisy: it's not. I was not being hypocritical, I was following the guidelines in WP:BLP. --JoanneB 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll write you a report. Due next month.

Cheers RobertR Young {^yakł_talk} 03:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Could, you, please, answer this question over here, Robert? Extremely sexy 10:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I replied here: [3] -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Camille Loiseau.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Camille Loiseau.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.--Strangerer (Talk) 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian Super Centenarians

Hi, I was doing some research on Russian WWI veterans when I came across some articles on elderly Russians: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.pravda.ru/society/family/life/04-04-2007/218649-dolgoletie-0&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D110%2B%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en%26sa%3DG http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2007/04/06_a_1555004.shtml&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D111%2B%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGGL,GGGL:2006-45,GGGL:en%26sa%3DG

You may know about them already but I thought I'd draw attention for you.

Regarding WW1, I have to say that Russian news sites are very good at translating syndicated news into Russian - all the recent veteran deaths are reported, but there are no annotations for Russian veterans, in fact WW1 is seldom mention at all in the face of the WW2 which they are very proud of. RichyBoy 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

However I was also thinking that if there are a couple of recently reported Russian females of that age then there is a possibility of some Russian males of around the same age and thus potentially some veterans. RichyBoy 09:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)