User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 7

Welcome back

Welcome!

Hello, Ryoung122, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'm hesitant to post your terms of unblock as you never told me directly that it would fine to do so. Would you mind doing the honours? Thanks, Maxim (☎) 02:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm not sure if this is really needed (sometimes less is more). But it's not too much to state that:

1. I agree on the need for sourcing; the original issue was I had wanted "100 days" to locate sources.

2. I agree on the need to get along with others and that I need to be respectful, that not everyone sees things the same way and that I don't "own" any article or discussion.

3. I agree to refrain from editing COI articles (however I should have the right to make comments on the "talk" page).

4. I also agree that "canvassing" is not a good idea...if material is really important, it should be judged as such by neutral, third-party observers.

Ryoung122 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia Robert Young. --Npnunda (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need the offices of an admin, I am prepared to help to the limit of my competence (and within WP practices, naturally). Thanks for the swift helpful advice to BV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be me: welcome back too. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Mr. Young. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back Robert Young. Good luck to you.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee when I noticed that you had already been unblocked. Good luck on your fresh start! TML (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Johnson

Hi Robert,

I have fixed the link. I can't find anything else more recent so think she should be moved to the Limbo Cases. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazare Ponticelli

Greetings, Mr. Young. I have already added the footnote about Mr. Goux to Pontyicelli's article. Oh, and if you want to speask to me, press the "the" in my signature or go to User talk:Editorofthewiki. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Photo

I'm saving the below template for temporary use. I plan to replace it with another photo. Thanks.

Image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg

[[Image:ryoung122.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Robert in Los Angeles April 2008
Ryoung122 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep that was me

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

Just to note, an "indefinite block" and a "ban" are not the same...persons banned generally are not allowed to return, ever...an indefinite block can be overturned, on appeal, if a majority of admins reviewing feel to give the blocked party another chance. Hence, it would be best to not create new sockpuppet accounts, but take a break, and return at some time in the future and agree not to engage in past bad edit behavior.

Remember the concept of "one man, one vote"...using sockpuppets to chime in more than once in a debate is patently unfair.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Onie

No problem Robert. The link was showing up as red when I saw the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&oldid=236844222 I'll let it go for now as it is working. Regards --Npnunda (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

About me

I am a subscriber to your World's Oldest Person group (I've even posted there a number of times), and that's how I knew about you (and your block). However, due to privacy reasons, I prefer not to disclose my WOP group identity here. TML (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can e-mail me privately at ryoung122@yahoo.com for further discussion.

Thanks Ryoung122 07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme longevity tracking

Your removal of the 'globalise' cleanup tempalte from Extreme longevity tracking has been reverted, since you made no relevant change to the article before doing so. Any article which claims that pension tracking is "near-universal" is clearly written from a "first world" perspective. Similarly, your removal of the "who" template, since adding the single word "people" to "some think" does not substantiate the disputed claim. Finally, your pejorative edit summaries were not acceptable. Please remember WP:AGF Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the [above] comments, I find them to be clearly out of line and unacceptable. My edit summary was NOT pejorative. To negatively tag an entire article with the "globalize" tag due to a single line which you can't obviously be bothered to edit, when in fact the article takes a global perspective (the argument being that claims to extreme age are universal across societies) is the height of arrogance. Clearly, civility begins with one's own actions first.

Sincerely,

Robert Young

Ryoung122 02:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are quite at liberty to dispute the tag on the article's talk page; to ask for a third opinion; or to report me in the appropriate places. Then someone else can tell you that your behaviour was unacceptable, and mine not. I would again remind you of WP:AGF, and that your accusation of arrogance is not on accordance with WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung, your edit summaries here and here were inappropriate, see Help:Edit Summary for proper use of the edit summary function. Additionally, it is considered improper to remove tags from articles without addressing the issue raised in some way as you did here, and you may want to be weary of WP:OWN on that article. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the biography on your user page, an the fact that the article refers to you, you may also have a conflict of interest. I suggest you read COI, also. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Aslan119

Hello. On 10 November 2007 User:JzG blocked "Aslan119" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite. The account is indefinitely blocked, so you wouldn't be able to edit from it even if the userpages were restored. It's been a while now, and things seem to be going better, so I'd recommend contacting the blocking admin(s) and asking them if they'd be willing to help you out. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unverified Chinese supercentenarians

You asked why I blanked the category. The answer is that it appears to serve no purpose, since it is not populated -- it contains no pages.

According to WP:SPEEDY, categories that have been unpopulated for at least four days can be speedily deleted. The way this works is practice is that when someone finds an unpopulated category that seems likely to remain so, they blank the page. This causes the page history to record that the category was empty at the time of the edit. If the category is still empty four days later, anyone can put {{db-catempty}} on the category, and within a day or so an administrator will delete the category. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

re Flemishboy (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your comment on my talkpage; I don't see an obvious similarity, since the edits are to the article space and are in the matter of removing duplicate wiki-links and the like. Bart was more into talk pages and adjusting times of other peoples comments, moving such comments into chronological order. If Bart had been doing the edits that Flemishboy is, then he may still be editing now. In any event, I am not looking to pursue it now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, btw

Thanks for your note, and a belated "welcome back" to the maelstrom! Good thing that the 15-deep crowd have been deep-sixed, at least for the moment. BTW, what ever happened to the big re-jig of the Oldest People page? After all the heat, nothing has changed. Seems we should at least pare down some of the agreed-upon stuff (like that useless chart). Canada Jack (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page

The article Local churches is recently been vandalized by User:Ad.minster, furthermore, I do not understand many of the recent edits such as how come this "Sunday Nights" correlates with the Lord's table meeting. His edits disqualifies all of the previous citation but then I can see the addition in the "controversy section" without providing a citation, strange, .. !!

There are some questions to be discussed: Where is the advertisement? Which links are supportive; which links are of the Local churches? Where is this local church? I would ask for the other editors of this page to look into his edits and bring a NPOV in the article and also somehow to reach the general consensus. I have reverted couple of vandalism earlier but this time it seems that discussing the subject might be able to solve the problem among the editors. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox practice

Trying out new signatures....Ryoung122 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Take 2.Ryoung122 07:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Old Tjikko

In response to your comments at Talk:Old Tjikko, there is no need to take offense or to take my comments personally. We both share in common the goal of improving Wikipedia. I made some minor adjustments to the formatting and placement of your comments, as your placement and formatting were unconventional and, therefore, confused me and could possibly confuse others. I hope that my adjustments did not change the meaning or intent of your comments.

• I moved a comment of yours that was embedded within a comment of mine to immediately after my comment. The end of a comment is indicated by the editor's signature (normally inserted with ~~~~).
• I indented your comments according to indentation guidelines described at WP:TALKPAGE.

Additionally, I removed material that you added that seemed in violation of the Wikipedia Copyright policy (I did this in accordance with WP:COPYVIO, "Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find.") I retained the link you added that referenced the same information. Generally, it's clear to me that we share the same intent of improving Wikipedia and I appreciate the points you have raised. I particularly appreciate the link to the source that discusses the disputed claims. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Old Tjikko

I have reverted your recent edit to Old Tjikko because it was controversial and unsupported by a reliable secondary source (see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY). I don't dispute the information myself, only that it is unsourced in the article. (As indicated in WP:NOR, it would be inappropriate for me to make an edit based on my opinion.) As the information you added is disputed by reliable secondary sources, it is inappropriate to choose one source over another unless there is no dispute that the prevailing source is more accurate and reliable. If two reliable secondary sources dispute the information, then the article should mention that the claim is disputed. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar and date linking

Hmm. Are you sure you want to initiate a meme like that? Date delinking is needed to some extent. One possibility that might be easier to push is reserving links for useful articles, but having some sort of date-markup for extracting date metadata where needed. That should work for centenarians and their ilk. BTW, have you seen the 100+ age-links at User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX? Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, great to have your attention. I don't believe that ALL date-delinking is bad. However, the way this has been handled (feels like a coup-takeover) is totally wrong. First, a false straw-man was set up that all dates were linked just due to computer formatting or such. Then, it was stated this was no longer necessary, so that meant virtually all date-year links should be deleted. Delete-bots can't distinguish between useful and useless date-links. Furthermore, ALL biography is situated by the birth and death dates, as well as the years of a career (for example, Reagan was U.S. President from 1981 to 1989). A single-year date link often means more than a single-day. A single day does not establish context..."this day in history" does not really establish context. Who cares what happened on Sept 17 in 1893, 1959, and 2008, as if it were all relevant? On the other hand, linking to 1893 establishes context for Edna Parker, world's oldest person. But even for young people: Pete Wentz born in 1979 places him in Generation-X. It makes absolutely no sense to delete links to dates when the very purpose of the date is to establish historical context. Thus, date links to years of birth and death, as well as links to major-career events (for example, taking office in year X) should be retained.Ryoung122 02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that links to single years, when used with care, can help establish context. BUT, and this is a big but, I see this as only a placeholder (and not a necessary one as it is trivial to type a year into a search box and get to the year article). What is needed is for biographies to have a short paragraph on overall changes in the world during the lifetime or career of the person in general. You know the sort of thing I mean. Born before the first aeroplane and died after men landed on the Moon. That sort of thing. Practically impossible to source, but if (and it is a big if) done well, then it provides the context. A counter-argument could be that it will be impossible to get these sort of well-written and well-sourced "context" bits, so the links should do that job anyway. I suggest that in the case of very long-lived people, or people whose lives or career span a particular period of upheaval and change, putting links in "See also" to the year of birth and year of death to cover the "state of the world" at these moments, would work. But then linking just the year (maybe in the infoboxes and not the main text) should serve this function (I agree, and so do lots of others, that the day links are useless, unless you are an "on this day" afficianado). I would advise not to oppose date de-linking in the main text of articles - that is a wiki-wide problem that will take a long time to undo - there are problems that were caused by date-linking-to-allow-auto-formatting, and those need to be undone. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I make it 145 articles on people who died aged 100+ (with no-one above 113). It would nice to have a similar set-up for people still living who are over 100. That should be possible from some sort of template. Looking at Category:Centenarians, it is horribly fragmented by natioanalities (and I'm not going to try and count up all those separate subcategories). I could use WP:CATTREE, but still. Is there not a category for living centenarians? If there isn't, I'm going to create one! Ideally, some sort of template logic could help here, but I'm useless at that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked: "Do you want these to become categories? How do we link the person to the age? For example, if Jeanne Calment died at 122, why is she not linked to the "122" age?" - that page (User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX), or rather the ability to generate such links, was produced in response to the proposed deletion of equivalent categories. I'm ambivalent over whether such categories are needed, as I think only the child and old people links/categories would be of any real use. Having a list of several thousand (tens of thousands ultimately) people who died in their 70s and 80s, while it would make demographers very happy, wouldn't really be very useful here. Seeing how the curve changed from century to century would be interesting as well, but ultimately not that meaningful as Wikipedia has a bias in that not every person whose birth or death was ever recorded has an article here. Still, having the data available would be useful, so I'm going to explain how it was done, which will answer your Jeanne Calment question. But I'll do this in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Age calculations

Have a look at Wikipedia:Age calculation templates, while I write the rest of my reply. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. The functionality behind User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX is using "invisible" tracker redlinks (ie. [[example| ]] which produces an empty space which still contains a link: " "). A bit dangerous to overuse that sort of thing, but handy in some cases. This change was done to the template {{Death date and age}}, which is one of most widely used of the stable of age calculation templates at Wikipedia:Age calculation templates. The specific change involves template logic, and was done with this edit. The reason Jeanne Calment doesn't show up on the link-lists I link to is because her age at death is calculated using the {{age in years and days}} template. That would also need to be modified, and, unlike the template that CBD changed, it is used on less then 500 articles. So changing it should be OK. I will do that in a minute. CBD seemed to indicate he would be consolidating the templates at some point. One point here is that if you want to extract precise age data (and it is only the young children and the long-lived people that tend to have the age given in years and months - see {{Age for infant}}), then that would be more difficult. The change I am making will only add "tracker links" for the year. If I can work out how to do this! Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Date-linking "deprecated"?

Comment. The word "deprecated" in these Wiki policies refers to the need to link dates for computer-based reasons:

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

There are other reasons to link dates, such as establishing historical context. Linking dates for year of birth and death, or years when a politician takes office, makes a lot of sense.Ryoung122 03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

hello. thank you for the above message...however, i have not idea what you are referencing. can you be more specific? --emerson7 04:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further to your comments on the above noted deletion discussion, you stated you wanted to use the image on your user page but were unable to figure out how. The way to do it is very simple, go in an edit your user page and add [[Image:N22620671_33776132_6083.jpg|250px]] to the place you want it to show up. In regards to the comment about it being unencyclopedic, the image is very unlikely to be used in an article on WP (unless of course your some famous person!) but as a user here, you are allowed a certain amount of personal non-WP stuff on your user page. I will add the picture to your page and you can move it around if you want.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)'

Thanks, that's where I wanted it...no need to re-invent the wheel, I like to learn from others when I don't know how to do something.Ryoung122 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

UK life expectancy stats

Hi Robert,

These animated maps have recently been created or at least modified and they show as how each year has gone past for the last decade how the life expectancy demographics in the UK have changed, by local government authority. You may have have seen it before but anyway here is the link:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/life-expectancy/default.asp

RichyBoy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Work

Keep up the good work. You are a creditable reference for those who are use to none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.56.240 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

There has been in the last few months a strong reaction to excessive date links. These were being removed by a bot. However, I now see that the opinion is moving back a bit. So keep your date links for now, but I suspect opinion will move back to remove them. Why are they there? What does the reader get from clicking on the link? This is a real question. I'm willing to be convinced that the reader benefits. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Linking and autoformatting of dates and other stuff you can find from there. The stuff you added back is really autoformatting as the people concerned are not, I think, mentioned on the page you are linking to. So, these dates were originally accepted, then not accepted and now something of a debate is going on. Perhaps you can take your pick, but I think they are just clutter. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Robert

		The Original Barnstar
		Robert, you have been so supportive to me and been there for all of the Supercentenarian researchers and the fans. You have kept a look out for everyone here at wikipedia and have done a great job. Keep up the good work. Plyjacks (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are a thing of the past for me

You deserved a barnstar Robert. Also I'm done with creating sockpuppets and I will not create another one. I now know that it can lead to trouble if you create a sockpuppet. So no more. KGC (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Hello there. I might be missing your point, but I was talking about scare quotes in the sense that it seems unnecessarily distancing to pick out a single, specific quotation of "one of the modern classics of Western literature" (which doesn't seem to be attributed to anybody particularly notable) rather than just to say that it's been regarded as one of the modern classics of Western literature.

I'm not sure we gain anything by clarifying those words as verbatim, and we certainly aren't using any of the words "in a sense other than the normal or most-common definition". --McGeddon (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The irony here is that "scare" quotes is a POV term that presuppposes bias in the use of quotations. In this case, the quotes were being used for verbatim copy and were henceforth relevant to avoid plagiarism. However, your re-wording seems acceptable as-is.Ryoung122 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see the new article up and running on the supers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered backing up your data to Flickr? I use it for my research. See here how I store data on individuals, and I can control who sees it. I also back up my articles to Knol. Every once in a while a get a check from Google for the ad revenue it generates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Qualify for your website?

I just noticed this news article [1], does she just scrape in? RMHED (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the family?Ryoung122 06:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just stumbled upon it whilst looking for something else. RMHED (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Concepts vs Conceptions

OK, I'll bite. I'm as partial to a purely semantic argument as the next idiot... There were two reasons I changed this - style and meaning. The primary definition of conception has to do with biology, not ideas the way concept does. In an opening paragraph the use of obscure definitions to achieve a marginal, obscure accuracy should be avoided, especially if the word used has a primary definition that may cause confusion. Context matters, but this is the lead word in the second paragraph in the opening section. Its meant to be introductory - context is minimal here. If there's a perfectly good word that means the same thing without context then that's what should be used. There's nothing wrong with concept here - its even used in the opening sentence (although incorrectly - that line should read 'refers to the categorizing of humans...')

The other reason was that the sentence refers to variance - change over time. I dont know if the Eden quote advances your argument - he talks of 'old-time conceptions' which can be superceded. That's not, as you said, a sum set of ideas both modern and antiquated. If we go with your defintion, the conception cant vary, it can only be added to. To me, a concept is something that appears as an idea in someone's head, and differences between concepts can vary over time and between people, which is what that paragraph is trying to get at. If a conception was defined as the act of forming a concept then it might work, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. Mdw0 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: This is NOT a "purely semantic argument." The reason that you're wrong is that you, ahem, don't understand the concept of "conceptions of race." The use in the sentence refers NOT to individual concepts of race but group-formulated conceptions of race, in the plural and overlapping sense. For example, Person 1 perceives that the "white race" has white skin, blue or brown eyes, etc. Person B conceives that the "Nordic race" has white skin and blue eyes and the "Mediterranean race" has olive skin and brown eyes. In this sense, the concepts overlap and do not fit exactly. Since the word "concept" is used, semantically, mostly to refer to individual concepts or develops (the Dodge viper concept car) and the word "conceptions" in the plural is used to refer to a collective sum of group concepts, choice B is more correct.

In addition, your red herring about "conception" as relating to biology is silly...no one says "life begins at conceptions." The context of "conceptions of race" make it totally clear as to what meaning is being referred to.Ryoung122 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright. I really think that whole sentence should be rewritten to something totally different, the more I look at it the weaker it seems. I still don't think concept in there is wrong. Conceptions as a synonym just seems redundant. But you're saying its not a synonym. I think what you're saying is that conception means a group formulated idea and conceptions are multiple group-formulated ideas. Is that right? I doubt you'll find a dictionary differentiating conceptions as being only manifest in and by a group. The ones I've checked all make it a synonym of concept. Or are you saying that conceptions is the plural of concept? That's not in the dictionaries either. If you see that wording as meaning exactly what you want it to mean and nothing else that might be OK for you, but it doesn't do much for the reader. It also makes it a bit hard to have a sensible semantic argument when you're making up your own definitions as you go along!

The one definition which might work for you I found on dictionary.com, which says conceptions ARE the act of forming a concept. So in that case it might work, but its still a redundant meaning - why would you say that the acts of forming ideas change, rather than the ideas themselves? Reading over your examples, I'd say that both person A and B have ideas or concepts that can vary over time. Just to be clear - what is it that you think is changing, the ideas, or the act of formulating the ideas or all the ideas everyone has on a particular topic at once?

Another definition I found was akin to an invention, as in a mental construction of something that doesn't exist in reality. That might also work but would require more context in a rewritten sentence. Mdw0 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Little Sark

Hi Ryoung122 - you made comments at Talk:Sark#Merge Little Sark about merging the article on Little Sark into the main one on Sark. I've made a few changes to the Little Sark article - could I ask you to have a look at it now, to see whether you still think it should be merged? Thank you, Grutness...wha? 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet

Recreating an article within hours after a consensus AfD deletion is not kosher. Please reconsider your actions and revert your recreation. Please take it up at a deletion review if you think the consensus was wrong. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments. Ryoung122 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A wise man once said "[D]eletion review is best used for contested deletions." You contest this deletion. Follow the rules, please. David in DC (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was only following consensus when I deleted the article. Please see a more detailed explanation PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) left at my talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you've been here long enough to know how completely inappropriate it is to accost someone who performed the technical aspect of the deletion recreate an article immediately afterwards. Accusing him (I assume the name Julian is a male here, please forgive me if it's not!), or anyone quite frankly, of being "on a crusade against porn, and gay porn in particular" is an uncalled for personal attack, particularly as he could not have closed the deletion discussion if he had voted on the issue. The AfD was up there longer than the average deletion discussion (over a week) so you had plenty of time to comment on it. The correct path was, as has been mentioned above, deletion review. As an uninvolved editor, I speedied it by criteria G4: recreation of deletion material. The issue is not that old and you dispute the deletion: please follow procedure and bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers, CP 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your speedy was incorrect; this was not "recreation of deleted material". I am not the same author as before and the previous version had some formatting advantages that could not be replicated. Further, I added additional citations and one was added by a third party.Ryoung122 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendums, etc.

Robert: Thanks for the note. I agree with just about everything you said. I expected a bit of a debate on the "addendum" issue, and am surprised that none has emerged, besides a few who have reverted them without discussion. And I see that most of the regular contributors have seemingly quickly embraced the addendums without much fuss, updating and improving what I had inserted. (p.s., I know that "addendums" is probably not a word, but I have one of these pet peeves about the pretension of using Latin plurals. We don't readily do that for many of the, for example, French words we use in English - no one says "the news bureaux" )

I also recognize that on some issues here you may feel you have a conflict of interest. And you may feel that it is not your place to make certain sweeping changes. I am in no such position. My interest in gerontology is from an amateur perspective, but I do feel that in this as in many endeavours there is no "correct" approach especially when there are multiple possible sources. Funny you used the boxing analogy, as that was in my mind as well when I put in the addendums (which, of course, was your suggestion in the first place) as there is no single authority. And, as I noted at the time, I haven't seen a "top 100" list from one of these sources. So to pretend, as some have, that there is any sort of "definitive" 100 list is to pretend the different authorities are in agreement. IOW, the pluralistic approach, not natural for many to accept, is the one we should strive to maintain here at wikipedia to retain its true "encyclopedic" mission.

And I also believe as you do that though some cases clearly should no longer be on the page, the fact that some of the authorities accept them is all we should be concerned about. Now that we have identified the various controversies, and included enough extra claims to make the lists truly 100-deep, I think the page is vastly improved. And the list-updaters should be pleased as that means they get to tinker with the page all that more often.

It still grates on me that that long-winded note on Baturiu is still there as that is a clear sign of original research. But the consensus is to keep it. And the day-count issue has been resolved for the time being. Though I would like to point out that when those born after February 28 1900 start entering the list in, I would suppose 2010 on the men's side and 2013 on the people's side, we might start getting a two-day gap. However, if we look at how many new people have entered the list, we see that on both lists, more than 50 per cent of claims are for people who lived into the 21st century, and we are only eight years into the new century! (Deaths post-January 1, 2001) That suggests to me that this "issue" will quickly become a non-issue as newcomers push out the claims which have been here for a long time. Canada Jack (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Mikhail Efimovich Krichevskiy

Would you happen to have an opinion on whether Mikhail Efimovich Krichevsky, a Unranian who claimed to be 111 when he died on the 26th of December, could or could not be confirmed as a veteran of World War I? There is a discussion that hasn't seemed to agree on anything.

Thanks, Star Garnet (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Giulia Sani-Casagli

Hello Robert. I was going to PROD Giulia Sani-Casagli with the reason of "No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual," but when I saw that you created the article, I figure you'd be oppose, so I thought I'd just come to your talk page. Other than the brief mention in the source provided, there is really no non-trivial information about her that I could find. Rather than dragging her to AfD, however, it might save us both effort and time if we could agree to merging her to List of Italian supercentenarians. I will perform the merge in full myself. Let me know what you think of that or, alternatively, if you have some non-trivial sources that could help demonstrate notability. Cheers, CP 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I could go with a merger. I generally favor mini-bios for persons at least 112 1/2 years old.Ryoung122 10:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll do it right now. Cheers, CP 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet redux

Hello! I have taken the liberty of rewriting Sebastian Bonnet with the addition of references to significant media sources, including the weekly San Francisco newspaper Bay Windows and the monthly magazine Interview. I also discovered a book on the subject that was published in 2004 -- that's in the article. Locating these sources took 10 minutes on Google. Hopefully, the article will remain on Wikipedia. Be well and thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Well, I must say that I never heard of Mr. Bonnet prior to researching the article. Fascinating way to make a living, all things considered. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice Farve

Hello Robert. In this edit to Beatrice Farve, you added a section called "age issue" and a big paragraph about her date of birth... I cannot, however, find this information in any of the references on the page. Could you provide the source where you got this information? Per WP:BLP, all information, particularly controversial items, must be cited to reliable sources. Thanks and Cheers, CP 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want it there, then delete it.Ryoung122 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I "want". If you have a source for it, then it should be there because it is relevant to the article. If not, it should be deleted. Cheers, CP 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is true. The census records are public record. The ID card is not.Ryoung122 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold is verifiability, not truth. I'll give it some time to potentially appear in obituaries, but after that it's getting removed. Cheers, CP 05:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Teresa Fumarola Ligorio

And another question. Do you want me to merge Maria Teresa Fumarola Ligorio or should I just nominate it for deletion? Cheers, CP 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

She was not only Italy's oldest living person, but had for a time been Italy's oldest person on record. I would say that warrants at least a merge.Ryoung122 17:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of challenged unsourced material and removing fact tags

Re: your repeated additions of unsourced material to Life expectancy and removal of citation needed tags [2] [3], [4].

Please consider WP:BRD, and provide sources for challenged material.

Please do not delete material such as citation needed tags without explanation.

Please explain your reversion of other people's edits.

Please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is the responsibility of the editor adding challenged material to provide WP:RS (and in this case, preferably WP:MEDRS). Thank you.

Dubious not intended as "name calling", the unsourced material was not clearly true, therefore I was dubious of the material. Is there a more generally preferred shorthand phrasing when challenging/removing unsourced material? Zodon (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Life expectancy. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Also please consider [5] 'Comment on content, not on the contributor.'WP:NPA Zodon (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

Per WP:MEAT, either retract the accusation that you made in this edit or bring it up at WP:ANI. That is a very serious accusation and I won't have it bandied about in a casual fashion. Cheers, CP 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with YOU is that you think Wikipedia revolves around YOU. Once again, read your above statement:

1."won't have it"--(this is NOT about what YOU will have or not have, it's about what is fair for Wikipedians)

2."bring it up" (telling me what to do)

I said "could be viewed" not that it was. Thus I am pointing out a potential problem with such a comment. Further, to claim this was a 3. "casual fashion" is false; 4. "bandied about" is spin. Nothing you said above was more than an emotional outburst. I just pointed out four POV emotional problems with your one message above. Yet you rarely, if ever, admit to fault. Your negotiations often begin with a threat (such as a threat to delete an article) so why should you expect positive feedback from negativity?Ryoung122 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment #2:

Meatpuppets Policy shortcuts: WP:MEAT WP:TEAMWORK

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose,

The commenter never edited Wikipedia or existed before 21 February 2009, yet finds the "list of living supercentenarians" page. Not only that, but he/she/it specifically mentions CP, claiming to "agree completely" without even discussing the issues. Those two facts make it a highly questionable comment.

As for ANI, usually ANI is reserved for multiple, repeated offenses or a single, very serious one. Simply giving someone notice that their conduct may be a violation of Wiki policy is a first response. It does not seek to raise the problem to a higher level. Thus, there is no reason (yet) to take this to ANI. Further, sometimes new editors engage in "meatpuppetry" even if not specifically requested to do so. Thus, the accusations were directed toward the new editor and his/her/its comments specifically.Ryoung122 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation Robert that attacks my conduct on my Wikipedia, so yes, I am going to be very insistent that you either retract it or, if you truly believe it, bring it to the proper authorities. If not, I will bring it up myself because it is not something that I will have lying unresolved on a talk page. Yes, "I" won't have it because it is an attack against "me". I am telling you what to do because this is NOT an accusation to be taken lightly. "Casual fashion" and "bandied about" are both true because you have not dealt with this accusation with the seriousness that it merits. You are accusing me of recruiting others to support me on Wikipedia. And not that it has anything to do with this issue, but I always admit to fault when necessary (see my request for adminship for a simple example). Cheers, CP 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the very definition of meat puppet, if I didn't request anyone to do so, they can't be a meat puppet. Cheers, CP 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy as currently written does NOT say that one has to be "requested to do so" to be a meat puppet:

Meatpuppets Policy shortcuts: WP:MEAT WP:TEAMWORK

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.[citation needed] The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care.

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.

There are in fact two issues, engaging in meatpuppetry (issue 1) and recruiting meatpuppets (issue 2). If there were not two issues, there would be no need to list this two ways.

In any case, I am supposed to be meeting a 110-year-old woman today, so have a nice day. Ryoung122 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not take this lightly and will begin by bringing this issue up with your Wikipedia mentor for further resolving. Cheers, CP 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Race" as a "Social Construct"

You said: There may be growing pc consensus, but a quick check of biology shows that it's simply spin.

To the best of my knowledge, biologists (especially geneticists) agree that "race" isn't a meaningful biological classification. This doesn't contradict the genetic diversity of humanity; it just says that separating humanity into racial "clusters" (as opposed to geographical clines) isn't really meaningful.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Springs, Georgia

At what level of per-capita income (or some other factor) does a city become affluent? Qqqqqq (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside sources consider Sandy Springs "affluent." Also, the median household income is $72,000:

http://www.sandyspringsga.org/

In 2007, the median household income in Sandy Springs is $72,682, up from $60,428 in 2000. The median home value is $451,200, up more than $135,000. Ryoung122 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(These unnamed "outside sources" sound dubious, but I digress.) Those numbers may be, but I still find the use of "affluent" in the lead to be POV. Why not just let the numbers speak for themselves? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes people try so hard to be "NPOV" that they basically rob the article of meaning. This community is affluent based on statistics (compared to the median values for Georgia), not opinions. Therefore, it is not POV.Ryoung122 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

W. Lee

Dear Ryoung122,

I've edited and removed all the unsourced materials from the article ("Objective or Subjective" & "Positive or Negative"). Removed the citation tag from the article as there are no more tags in the article. Added a couple of references and have given my input on the talk page. Thank you. HopeChrist (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was clear that this was a single-issue editor whose edits were POV and biased. Thus it was good to undo most if not all of them.Ryoung122 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Robert Young; In case you haven't read my response to you here it is. As I was reading you talk page I could see what a pain in the butt you are to so many people. Wow! Well at least you stay in character:

Dear Mr. Robert Young (Ryoung122), You err in your logic in several ways:

1) You assume I am a Witness Lee “opposer”. To disagree is not to oppose. But maybe this is your definition of an “opposer”: “anyone not with us is against us”. Again I say this is similar to arguments leveled in the past against those who left a local church. “Ah, you are not one with us so you must be one with the Devil.” Since you don’t own this site, it is neutral ground and editors are just adding what they think is relevant. An “opposer” I suppose would be attaching Witness Lee’s LSM. You speak as if you have not already claimed this article for yourself and take great pride in it as if it is definitive or a real encyclopedia which it is not, nor is it recognized as such by experts around the world. So, please, don’t be so high minded and defensive and attaching everyone.

I don't have to assume anything, your own words convict you. To disagree is to oppose. If Congress took a roll call vote and you voted "nay" then you oppose the motion. Now, I didn't say that you were "one with the Devil" because to say such a thing would be to attach a POV, unverifiable opinion. But to say you are an "opposer" when you are opposing is not.

 No, to oppose requires action; to disagree requires opinion. I am not opposing but editing.

Also, do you mean "attacking"? Yes.

And LSM is not "Witness Lee's"--he is deceased for 10+ years.

So I can’t be a Witness Lee opposer. Thank you.

As for putting down Wikipedia: this is one of the top-ten most-visited websites in the world and, for better or worse, most students turn to Wikipedia first. Also, as Coretta Scott King said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." The message is that one should not allow something wrong to slide by with the claim of "insignificant"--otherwise the "tumor" will simply grow larger.

Yea, that is why I try to edit out your nonsense. Hey, Robert, usage does not imply authenticity or appropriateness.

And no, I have not claimed this article for myself...but I do see your edits as counterproductive.Ryoung122 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And I yours.

2) Shouting in capital letters is not becoming and shows your anger. I think we can do without your little tirades but they are good for a laugh.

Words typed on Wikipedia, capital letters or not, are not "shouting." You cannot HEAR the capital letters.

YES, YOU CAN! Comments such as "little tirades" and "good for a laugh" are attempted put-downs that reflect more on you than they do on me. They are an attempt to elevate you above me. Attempt failed. Laughter is acceptable for humor, not for belittling people. Putting others down to make yourself feel better is NEVER appropriate.Ryoung122 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So stop it already.

3) You say I focus on the negative in Witness Lee’s writings. I think you are referring to Witness Lee’s writing about Babylon as being the negative portion of his 25,000+ words. I don’t know why you view this as negative unless you don’t have a NPOV. They are just words and we are just staying them as facts, not commenting for or against the words. But seeing the words as negative you lash out against me and accuse me of being an “opposer”.

4) You place me “in a rebellion against him within the local church in 1987.” What rebellion was I in? I don’t know what you are talking about unless it is the rebellion made up by Witness Lee in his own mind concerning 3 individuals with whom he had some kind of dispute. I never knew of any rebellion, not did I ever contact anyone Lee considered involved in “His Rebellion” concerning my decision to leave the local church. I just left and never came back other than to privately meet with the elders in my locality and discuss my leaving with them. One of them called me a “liar” and “one with the devil” and that is the last I every talked with them or any member of a local church. You seem to want to see yourselves at the center of a battle for the truth and you make up non-existent enemies to justify your fighting. This is strange and would be funny like Don Quixote, if it weren’t so sad.

What is so sad is your self-delusion: you stir the pot and then deny it.

You stirred the pot when you accused me of being in a rebellion.

5) I admit to taking the name “localchurch”. However that does not identify me as a single-issue non-NPOV editor. It simply means that since I wanted to learn how Wikipedia works I started with a user name that I could remember as I edited an article with which I had personal experience to see how it works. My interest lies more in how Wikipedia is edited than in the local churches. I admit to messing with your mind a little so that I could instruct my students how untrustworthy Wikipedia is, so that they can learn to seek out better sources of information. My students and I have learned a great deal and we thank you for your help in demonstrating Wikipedia’s unreliability to my students. 70.95.99.216 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Opps! Forgot to sign in as Localchurch (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs)

"I admit to messing with your mind a little bit". Again, more proof that you are not editing in good faith. Now, I don't have to ASSUME GOOD FAITH because you admitted to bad-faith editing. Thanks!

Whooo Hooo! You won one! Congratulations, Robert. You win. I will go away now. Whooo Hooo!

Of course, even the claim that you are "messing with my mind" says more about you than it does about me. Since I am more intelligent than you, you cannot mess with my mind. But saying so shows a pattern of constructing an alternate reality that is often described as a "God-complex": having an exagerrated sense of self-worth.

Hey! Now that hurts. I am something very special, I’m the only one-of-a-kind. God loves me and so does everyone else including you. You love me. You know you do. Come on, admit it.

Also, my edits do NOT demonstrate the "unreliability of Wikipedia". Perhaps yours do--or rather, the accumulated weight of edits by other editors supported Wikipedia's balance against your apparent ego-trip.

Just wondering: you claim to have "students". I feel sorry for them, whatever it is you are attempting to "teach" them. You can't even spell "oops", what does that say about you?

Oops. Yea, my brother says I am a bad speller to. And I am a bad typer. That says, I guess, that I am a very bad teacher. Very bad! I will tell my students. Students, I am very bad because I cannot spell oops. I spelled it “opps” and that is not a word. What? Whats that you say? Oh, I can’t tell Robert that; he would be crushed.

Finally, I am reminded that Confucius warned that it was "not wise to argue with a fool...one might not know the difference." Thus I am going to simply say this: STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE!!!! Ryoung122 01:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Opps!

You misspelled "notorious"

- - You continue to show yourself as not the best person when it comes to spelling, capitlization, logic, grammar, or practical sense. Your latest misspellings just continue a long line of evidence to those conclusions.Also, dredging up old disputes from 2007? Canada Jack and I are now friends. But then again, you still hold a grudge from 20+ years ago, all because you wanted the "local church" to be about YOU. It's not. By the way, the "local church" is NOT capitalized because "local" is an adjective (a description of what it is), not a noun. But once again, you choose to be aberrant, self-centered, and self-deluded. - - Finally, I thought I told you to stay off my talk page. I will stay off of yours if you do likewise.

Not wise to argue with a fool. You should stay away from that, Robert. Ouch! You caught me at bad spelling, "capitlization", hehehehe, the ultimate in stupidity--misspelling when criticizing misspelling. Ouch! That's got to hurt your ego. Wow! Anyway, I have no old disputes, just current ones that exist in the LSM current on-line writings (See current discussion concerning Wise Master Builder. This is not 20 years ago. Just because I left 20 years ago doesn't mean I am concerned with the issues back then. I just want you to face up to the reality you have created for yourself and marvel that you are undertaking going to the world to get your message across. It is also interesting to see the same old arguments come up again, i.e. "you are part of a rebellion", and "they handed out pamphlets saying Witness Lee is a pope." I didn't. I was not even there. You were; maybe you are part of the rebellion. Maybe when you were 13 you handed out such pamphlets for all we know. I don't think you ever got me on logic or practical sense; I mean, I had the practical sense to leave the Local Church. I can capitalize it--I am an outsider. That's what we do, or so says Wikipedia on the sight: Local Churches. Wow! what a powerful argument your aberrant, self-centered, and self-deluded argument is! By your definition adding numerous corrections to the Witness Lee article is self-centered, and of course to disagree with the great Robert Young is to be self-deluded. Hehehe. Yea, you best advice is not to argue with a fool, because you start looking more foolish than the fool. Tata, go to get back to editing the Witness Lee article, doing the work that God called me to. I suggest you do the same. You seem to be an expert on old age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:EDITS

Hi Ryoung, I see you've updated wp edits, and noticed that I've dropped off the list. Could you perhaps have another look at your new version as some of the data seems to have reverted to July 2008. Also is there a way of making it smaller as my PC really struggles with 250k files. WereSpielChequers 13:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why the latest edit count update is a version from six months ago. Check the Nov 2008 version, I had 198,000, currently I have 225,000. The same for the others too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've undone your edit to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest as it seems to have taken it back 7 months from Feb 09 to July 08. However if you want to re run it using the latest data (theres at least one more recent dump available) please could you make it smaller? The file wound up at 250k and not every user can handle that. Rather than having one table showing bots, sysops, total edits and recent edits it might be better to create multiple lists. WereSpielChequers 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was trying to update an old version which was incorrect, not change the new version. Someone has fixed this problem.Ryoung122 10:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No Problem, just for future reference the latest version of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest is automatically transcluded into wp:EDITS. WereSpielChequers 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander

Hello Robert

I run the portuguese version of List of living supercentenarians, and I see that you anounced the death of Antonia Plaat-Kolenbrander. Can you provide me any proof of it, since if I delete Plaat-Kolenbrander from the list with no proofs, other user can revert my edition, and I cannot argue with him/her. And, why does she remain in GRG list?Japf (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that she passed away in 2008. We are waiting for the date of death to update the GRG list.Ryoung122 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Lewis, Jr.

Hi, I did some formatting on your entry at the Charles Lewis, Jr. AFD for readability. Please go ahead and revert if it was inappropriate. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I added the refs in it's own edit now, and while I still believe some of the content isn't in a very NPOV ATM it'll be worked out over time. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Lewis, Jr

Report me for removing unsourced material that appears to be original research from a BLP? Sure, have fun with that. Instead, if you have a source for it you should put it up for all to see :) Best, --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just read your messages at the article-talkpage and I re-added it with a footnote explaining the calculations :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mail sent

Hi Robert. Some concerns have been raised here. I've responded there, and sent you an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Martha Graham

Robert: Got your note about this case. I understand your rationale for the dispute here, but for the purposes of wikipedia, is this an opinion which can be cited (as opposed to that Japanese case you doubt but there's been no published dispute so we couldn't put "dispute" on it)? I took it upon myself to find links for pretty well all the dispute cases on the "100" pages. (Couldn't find one for Beard's case.) So if there is some way I can cite this, that would be great (I saw nothing on GRG which explicitly doubted Graham's case outside a suggestion it was problematic with no explanation - please point me in the right direction here...)

My general point here is not to argue about Graham's case per se but to be a bit more stringent about what is and what is not "disputed" and to make there there is explicit mention of the issues in dispute. And to ensure that someone coming to the pages will see that, indeed, there are x number of disputed cases and therefore that same x number in the addendum. As it stands, there appears to be 3 disputes but 4 in the addendum. Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting your wikipedia article back

Hi Robert,

Maybe you should get your article back on wikipedia. If you want to start a new one I will support it. Enjoy your vacation. KGTC (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

Maybe someone else should start it. Since 2007, I've only added to my resume, including obtaining my Master's degree in 2008, winning the national award for best graduate paper in gerontology (2008) and having been featured again in the AJC newspaper (an article about me) in 2009. But I don't think we need a separate article yet. What we DO need is to add ONE PARAGRAPH to the extreme longevity tracking article for each major player. You could add a paragraph about me there, and the rules for inclusion as part of an article, rather than a standalone article, are not so strict.Ryoung122 06:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Noteworthy

Robert wrote on a Living Stream Ministry edit, "PLEASE...TELL ME THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE". Uh, Robert, the Bible is the only Christian scripture. Now maybe you meant to say the Bible is the most significant publication of the Living Stream Ministry. But you made a Freudian slip and substituted "scripture" for "publication of the Living Stream Ministry". You tend to make these kind of Freudian slips more often when you are SHOUTING IN CAPITALS. The sad thing is that the LSM is publishing the Recovery Version in order to publish Witness Lee's footnotes which take up more space than the Bible and apparently have become "scripture" to some very much like the Mormons adding something to the Bible. Localchurch (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an old saying, "Assumptions make asses of us all." What you say above is 100% incorrect. I do not take local church ministry work as "scripture." I was alluding to the fact that SOME Christians might think there is scripture other than the Bible (the Apocrypha, for example) but ALL agree that the Bible is more important than the extra books (which Catholics include). Your "Freudian slip" nonsense is simply YOU projecting your AGENDA...that is, the agenda to bash the "local church."

Let me say this: you don't know anything about me. I might be an atheist. I might be a Buddhist. I might be defending the local church in the same way I defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, NOT the place to wage a debate about the local church, apologism, or for you to insert your ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I will say this: my personal opinion of you is that you have forgotten that "your rights end where others begin." If you choose to leave the local church, fine. Leave. But it's not for you to make that choice for other people.

Go away.Ryoung122 06:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

KMA

Robert writes: "Let me say this: you don't know anything about me. I might be an atheist. I might be a Buddhist. I might be defending the local church in the same way I defend the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bottom line: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, NOT the place to wage a debate about the local church, apologism, or for you to insert your ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Finally, I will say this: my personal opinion of you is that you have forgotten that "your rights end where others begin." If you choose to leave the local church, fine. Leave. But it's not for you to make that choice for other people. You are not a good person because you seek to destroy and tear down the work of others, rather than build something for others. Ryoung122 06:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U;ser_talk:Localchurch"

No I don't know anything about you. Wikipedia is a place to discuss articles and edits to articles. I have no original research; I don't know to what you are referring. I can't leave the Local Church, I already left. I agree, you also must make that, or another choice for yourself. I don't know what you mean by "destroy and tear down". I have made many constructive edits to Witness Lee article and some others. Please do not view these as destroying and tearing down the work of others, but rather repairing. I look forward to working with you whenever I can be of help to you. Thank you for your constructive criticism however misguided. I missed you while you were gone. Welcome back! Localchurch (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are like the person who cannot separate church from state. Wikipedia is a virtual-reality world with its own policies and "laws"...which you continually break. I do not view your edits of the local church articles as constructive in any way. For example, trying to say that the Recovery Version Bible is "mainly" footnotes, and your other comments about scripture, indicate that you view the local church the same way some view Mormons...not Christian and adding extra material to the Bible. But you are wrong. The Recovery Version Bible makes clear what is scripture and what is not; the text is larger than the footnotes. Much of the footnotes cite similar verses elsewhere in the Bible. The local church NEVER claims that the teaching of Witness Lee is scripture. Also, they never claim a formal name, so your use of a capital "Localchurch" moniker is purposely deceptive.

Remember, Wikipedia is NOT about what you want; it is about objectivity. Articles on the local church, Witness Lee, and the LSM should describe what they are and do, and give a little history...that's it. They are not here to convince someone to join, or to convince someone not to join, or to bring people to Jesus. Also, your messages left for HopeChrist were not only highly inappropriate for Wikipedia but reflect a clear misunderstanding of the Bible. Jesus himself said "the poor you have with you always." His words need to be placed into context...he only said "go and sell all" to the man who placed riches first in his heart. Nowhere does it say that every man needs to go and sell all.

What is first in your heart? Let me say it: YOUR WILL. You are not about Jesus. You are about YOU. So, my advice to you (since you think Wikipedia is the place to give advice): repent of your sins, leave Wikipedia, join a monastery, and hopefully we'll never see you again.Ryoung122 07:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Localchurch"

Thank you, Robert. I agree with the purpose of Wikipedia. I hope I am not breaking the rules. I am doing my best since you instructed me not to play around. I am not trying to get anyone to join or leave anything. What makes you think that? I will talk to HopeChrist about any problems he had with my messages. You are turning all my words around and although I was going to try to straighten out your mistakes, I will just state one. I am not trying to get anyone into or out of the local churches, LSM or to follow Witness Lee or not. I am just trying to give a more accurate picture of what they are about. I hope that if you reread the articles themselves, not the notes in which we discuss our perspective, that you will see that I have done that. You are letting the discussion pages color your view of the articles. Please be fair and impartial and let me know if any of my edits are not accurate and appropriate. Please be specific and don't deal with innuendos.

Now, Robert, you know what you said in your last paragraph was not nice and violates Wikipedia rules about being polite and friendly. You did not read carefully the discussion between HopeChrist and I. He asked for my advice or I would not have given it. But I forgive you and hope we can collaborate on some articles in the future. Nighty, nite. Localchurch (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion with HopeChrist

Robert, in response to HopeChrist, I responded to his apology. Below is the documentation of your intrusion. You have violated the rule you say I violated. However, I was asked for advice and you were not. So please stop sticking your nose into discussions others are having with each other. Also you engaged in personal attacks on me all of which I take an exception to. You accuse me of being hateful and having a mission to destroy and I do not. I have added many constructive changes to the articles I have been editing. Please judge me not by my beginning but by how much I have learned as a result of your and HopeChrist's gentle guidance. Please objectively view my edits and judge them for themselves; don't judge me. This should not be a place to criticize others no matter what you think of their NPOV. Localchurch (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology for prejudging me. Here are some suggestions as to what you can do: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localchurch (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Realize that you do not have a NPOV when it comes to the local churches and Witness Lee and therefore not qualified to edit them without introducing a biased perspective.

that might be true.Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 2) Sell all you have give it to the poor and follow Jesus.

Wikipedia is NOT the place for evangelism, proselytyzing, apologism, or pushing POV...also, HopeChrist apparently already follows Jesus. The problem with "Localchurch" is that he thinks that only his version of Jesus is the "right" Jesus...but unless his material is published in reliable sources, putting it on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:RS policy.Ryoung122 07:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I know but HopeChrist asked "What Can I Do?" (see heading above) and so I offered my suggestions. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3) Understand the Lord's words: "First take the log out of your own eye...." were intended to show you that you can't fix others because there will always be another log in there. So exercise righteousness on your self and mercy toward others until you find yourself in a place called "The New Jerusalem".

In my opinion, "HopeChrist" does NOT have a "log in his eye." Also, the Bible does NOT say that there is always another log...the words were directed to "hypocrites". Other scriptures tell brothers to admonish one another with spiritual love, something Localchurch knows nothing about.Ryoung122 07:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) We all have logs in our eyes. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4) Judge yourself not by how much you think you are filled with the divine triune processed all-inclusive life-giving seven-fold intensified Spirit, but by how much you have helped those in need.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Yes it does say that, check out the book of James (or have your torn that book out?). Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5) Understand that no matter how many adjectives you give to the Spirit of God they are just meaningless words unless you do 2) above.

That's not what the Bible says.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 6) Stop going to all those meetings passively listening and spend time helping others if you want to be spiritual (i.e. become a doctor and devote you life to healing the poor).

Learning is not "listening passively."Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) It is just my opinion and this was our conversation, not Roberts. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

7) Repent from reading Witness Lee's footnotes and get back to the Bible only. Localchurch (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, proof that "Localchurch" is anti-Witness Lee and anti-local church. Lee's footnotes are useful, effective, and help make the Bible more meaningful, in part by bringing together similar verses in the Bible. It took 70 years for Lee to complete his work...that's a lifetime. "Localchurch" spends his time tearing down others, not building things up. Don't listen to him.Ryoung122 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC) No, I just think enough is enough. I know of local churches that "prayread the footnotes". Pretty soon the Bible is forgotten and colored. This is an appropriate comment to HopeChrist who told me to take off my colored glasses so I could see clearly. However, I think the same applies to HopeChrist. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear HopeChrist, you should have not apologized. "Localchurch" is NOT a "brother"...he is an opposer. He is an evil person whose mission is to spread lies. Look, I don't care if someone is Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever...as long as they can be trusted. But when it is their mission to deceive, that is not acceptable. Ouch! Oh but I am a brother who holds to the common faith and was mysteriously born of the Spirit. Bzzzzzzt, wrong, but thank you for playing. That is not Christian of Robert to say that and reflects poorly on the local churches if that is their attitude, because they keep saying in print that they would never say that those who disagree with them are not brothers. Please assure me, HopeChrist, that this is not the view the local churches hold. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is NOT the place for theological debates, apologism, or any of the like. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and as such, the goal of Wikipedia is to be as objective and NPOV as possible...clearly this is NOT "Localchurch's" goal.

Now, come on Robert. I am trying to be objective and NPOV. I am trying very hard and writing edits that help Wikipedia to be more NPOV. I only am discussing this with HopeChrist because he asked me to. Localchurch (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 07:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HopeChrist" Hidden categories: All pages needing factual verification | All articles that may contain original research | Articles needing additional references from September 2008 | Articles lacking sources from September 2008 | All articles lacking sources

TB Ping

Hello, Ryoung122. You have new messages at ErgoSum88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wow! You are not nice, welcoming and polite to other Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia asks you to be. Localchurch (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this conversation has to do with you, but I'll bite. Did you read his message to me? Do you think his conversation with me was welcoming and polite? He accused me of being ignorant so I responded in due form. Enough said. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment was directed to Ryoung122. Yes, I read his message to you. He treats everone with arrogance, mean spiritedness and is very unpolite and unwelcoming. That's just the way Robert is. He thinks he is God's gift to the rest of us. Localchurch (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I feel like an ass then. I'm sorry. I see what you mean though, this talk page is full of enough WikiDrama to make me want to ignore him which I should've done in the first place. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Longevity folklore

Please comment about the compromise title longevity folklore (for the longevity myths or longevity narratives article), at Talk:Longevity narratives#Discussion toward consensus. This message is being copied to 4 people. Thank you. JJB 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It is in your interest to answer these two questions in addition to those I asked you at Talk:Longevity narratives, and it is appropriate to ask them here instead of there. Reference. JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Ryoung says "I agree on the need to get along with others and that I need to be respectful, that not everyone sees things the same way and that I don't 'own' any article or discussion." Are characterizations of other editors respectful when they include such terms as "hijack", "farce", "YOUR OWN INFRACTIONS", "If you are offended by this article, or others such as ones on pornography, then leave", "this article is not about what you read to your child at bedtime", "completely misses the point", "Do you really think it took 7 days for [creation] to happen?", "misses the entire point", "fantasy: the same realm that includes 'stories' of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster", "Attempting to overthrow five years of consensus-building with just two weeks of massive editing is clearly disruptive", "p.c. b.s.", "Is 'UFO' a loaded word?", "stop your ORIGINAL RESEARCH"? JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It seems that YOU are the one being scorched-Earth here. Consider, for a moment: would ANYTHING I said above have to be deleted from TV broadcast? NO. A "Personal attack" is Perez Hilton saying "Carrie Prejean is a b... and a c...". The above comments that I made are NOT a personal attack. It was not about you, it was about your actions. For example, the word "hijack" means "steal away." I do really think you have tried to change this article way too fast, while others were busy. Now that things have calmed down a bit, there are still many, many reasons why you are wrong. I will explain one at a time.Ryoung122 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Ryoung says "I agree to refrain from editing COI articles (however I should have the right to make comments on the 'talk' page)." Would you please provide a list of articles and/or categories of articles that constitute COI articles? JJB 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the definition of "refrain":

to keep oneself from doing, feeling, or indulging in something and especially from following a passing impulse

I didn't say "never." However, in my mind a COI article is one where I'm editing material in a way that comes across as "self-promotion", such as "Gerontology Research Group." I don't see idea-promotion (the longevity myths article was created by Louis Epstein) as the same as "self-promotion." If I'm quoting myself as the source, then that's self-promotion. However, others are free to do so.Ryoung122 16:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you appear to believe yourself in compliance, and presuming your familiarity with WP:WL and WP:INDEF, I would conclude that you would invite having a random admin independently verify your compliance. JJB 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the above seems like a peronal attack: focusing on the messenger, NOT the message. Clearly, you are pushing an agenda that is not in compliance with Wikipolicies such as "No Original Research" and "Verifiability"(articles should reflect outside research, not your personal opinion). It is clear that YOU are engaging in "wikilawyering" rather than try to be constructive and come to consensus. You should reconsider your actions and comments before continuing to push POV, unscientific editing on a subject that you clearly know nothing about.Ryoung122 20:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Robert, I came here after posting at WP:COI/N that I didn't see a COI problem so far. But I am a little concerned to see your comment above about "idea-promotion". Per WP:NPOV, the job of Wikipedia is to present the difft perspectives on a subject in a fair and balanced way, and I don't think that "idea-promotion" fits well with that principle.

I'm delighted that your return appears to have gone smoothly so far and I don't want to get involved in this area again, but I urge caution about an appearing to be pushing a particular POV. And WP:CIVIL doesn't just mean avoiding personal attacks, it also means not using language which unnecessarily antagonises other editors.

Over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi, you have been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Longevity_myths.2C_Longevity_claims.2C_etc. In August 2008 you said that you would stop editing pages with which you had a conflict of interest with (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryoung122&diff=234473900&oldid=234418766) yet you appear to still be doing so. Your comments with regard to this would be most welcome. Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining "biblical scholar"

(I'm re-writing my first effort)

You asked me for my definition of the term "biblical scholar". I doubt that there's any easy-to-find definition to hand, so this must be understood as my own personal view.

I'm using the term in a rather restricted sense. Witness Lee is undoubtedly a scholar, and he studied the bible, but the focus of his interest was the spiritual. That's not what I'm attempting to define. Witness Lee would look at the spiritual meaning of Methuselah and the other patriarchs, but he wasn't interested in the history of the bible itself. Nor, I think, did he have the scholastic tools to examine that side - a knowledge of the relevant languages, which include the languages of the ANE as well as Hebrew, nor I think would he have followed archaeological discoveries and theories, nor the developments in literary theories of the bible. Certainly he never published in relevant peer-reviewed journals such as the RBL (just an example) - I imagine he never even tried, it wouldn't have been his area of interest. Nor are his books cited by biblical scholars (using the restricted definition I outlined above: the history of the text) - again, I doubt that this bothered Witness Lee at all. So, for the purpose of investigating the origins of the Methuselah myth, as opposed to its meaning, Witness Lee is not a relevant source.

PiCo (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

grg table e

How long does it take before an individual is put on the grg table e list? John Campbell Ross has been 110 for a few months now and his name has yet to appear on that list. I'm sure that there is a lot of verification to be done and a lot of individuals that need to be verified with few to comb the files. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.56.240 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians

You undid, without any explanation, the correction I made to the entry for Louisa Shepherd. Why? As I explained on the talk page, she was born, and still lives, in Monmouthshire, which at the time of her birth was legally part of England, and which is now within Wales. She lives in the same place she was born, and it appears to be consistent with other entries in such circumstances - for example, Rosa Rein - for this to be recognised in the schedule itself. Could you please explain your actions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained my edit on the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You earned it

		Home-Made Barnstar
		This barnstar goes to you Robert for all the hard work you do to make wikpedia and supercentenarians better. You have been through a lot of diffcult things on wikipedia, the 110 club and and the yahoo WOP group. I have seen many difficult and stressful things go on with the groups but I've never seen anyone handle it as well as you. I gave you a barnstar last year and this year I thought you should get another one because I've never seen someone handle things like you have and do it very well. For all you do you deserve another one. Plyjacks (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eugénie Blanchard

Hi there. You're usually first on the scene with knowledge about this kind of thing, so I hope you can set me right or wrong. Following the death notice on Deaths in 2009 about Lucia Lauria Vigna, I checked Blanchard's article, and the article itself said that she had died, but no notice was up on the Recent deaths page.

Like I said on Blanchard's page, I'm not sure whether or not it qualifies as BLP •grins• but any further knowledge or news would be appreciated. All the best. Bobo. 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Gertrude Baines

O.K., you may change the edit. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Ryoung122. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

blocknote

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

In response to this, you've been blocked for a week. I encourage you to use the unblock template to explain what's going on here. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ryoung122 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was not a threat, it was a hypothetical statement. User Fyunck(click) has been deleting the names of French Open champions, which should be vandalism. I was shocked and apalled that, after our compromise discussion in 2007, he went back to the same aggrieved behavior as before. While I overreacted, my intention was to point out a problem. The problem is that Fyunclick has been dominating/WP:OWN ing the Wikipedia tennis articles, rather than following the rules, which state that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should follow what outside sources say, NOT his own personal view of the world. Point #2: My goal on Wikipedia is to promote "education." Wikipedia is NOT paper. There's no reason to delete the names of French champions prior to 1925. The Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources list them, as do other articles on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

I find you calling it not a threat disingenuous, because even if so, it is a severe personal attack and would be blockable in any case. I will not speak on the content issue(s); those are irrelevant as regards blocks (which are conduct-based). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Conflict

I suggest you take this conflict to the tennis project for resolution. Note the following points.

1. Try not to revert more than the changes you disagree with when reverting - if you revert at all.
2. Despite the Men's title having an English winner, it may not have been truly open, and the Women's may have had different entry requirements.
3. The validity of including, and usefulness of, some of the derived statistics may be in question. If they are not there and there is a change in the status of the French event it can be footnoted.
4. It would be useful to know when the term "Grand Slam" was first applied to these tourneys.

Rich Farmbrough, 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC).