User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, DerbyCountyinNZ! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Godfrey Rampling

Ever since the death of Roger Beaufrand, the position of "oldest living Olympic champion" has remained vacant. The oldest I could find was Godfrey Rampling, hence I added him to my watchlist to see if any new information would arise. What do you think? Oldest? Or is there someone older? Also, the issue of the oldest living Olympic athlete (with or without medal) was discussed at Talk:Arthur Marshall (engineer), with no conclusive results (though I did manage to eliminate many possible candidates). Cheers, CP 02:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Something I have wondered about for a while! Which is why I made a list of the oldest and earliest medallists and Champions for all track and field events (I hope to make a page out of it eventually). Rampling is the oldest of either sex for any medal as far as I can find. The oldest female medallists appear to be Eileen Hiscock (25 Aug 09) for 4x100 and Marjorie Clark (6 Nov 09) for 80H. Oldest Gold medallist is Evelyn Furtsch (17 April 14) for 4x100. There are no death dates for most of the relay medallists from 1932 and 1936 which I suspect is omission rather than evidence that they are still living.

I was going to check on the swimming medallists next but there are too few entries to make it worth while. Haven't even looked at other sports. This site: [1] has some good info (including Pietro Rava last 1936 Football Gold medallist) but unfortunately seems to have stopped at December 06. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 10:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I was thinking of playing around with that idea in my sandbox too, but not just with medalists, with all Olympians too. I think I'm going to to a little bit of a prototype today and then keep adding to it bit by bit. Anyhow, keep up the good work! Cheers, CP 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my prototype. Since I don't plan on making this a page, feel free to take, steal, mangle etc. to your liking. Cheers, CP 15:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not sure that Augustin Chantrel is alive, or even made it to 100. Cheers, CP 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that I should add him to the centenarians list, I should have asked if you intended to or not. I assume that as his bio was only started this year it was after his 100th last year (assuming the 11.11.06 DoB is correct) and that he is more than likely still alive.DerbyCountyinNZ 06:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only did the source for Chantrel provide his ever-elusive date of death, but it also provided us a source for the last three likely "oldest living Olympic athletes" – Lajos Homonnai followed by Carmelo Camet and then by Signe Johansson-Engdahl. Cheers, CP 00:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's great to get more information! I wonder if starting some sort of page would help in filling in the blanks...?DerbyCountyinNZ 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The only problem would be that the whole "oldest living athlete" thing is very subjective. Looking at the American papers, for example, they were claiming in 2002 that a woman born in 1906 was the oldest living Olympian which, at the very least, ignored Marshall, Homonnai, Camet, Johasson-Engdahl, Feroze Khan and, strangely enough, their own James Stillman Rockefeller. The Olympic committee only puts in the effort for tracking the gold medal winners – thus we have a clear lineage from Rockefeller to Khan to Roger Beaufrand... I don't mean to discourage you, and I'd love to help, I just suspect it wouldn't last long. Once that Olympic project is released to the public, however, it may become much more plausible. Cheers, CP 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! I've thought of raising it on the trackandfieldnews messageboard, I'm sure there's plenty of people on there who could provide useful info but I don't know whether other sports have the same kind input. Might be a few weeks before I get onto it...a few other things to sort out first!!Cheers.DerbyCountyinNZ 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this? Haha. Cheers, CP 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A-ha! Exactly what I was after!!DerbyCountyinNZ 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a gold medalist older than Rampling but younger than Beaufrand who may still be living Robert Wyman. A new contender for the oldest living gold medalist. Cheers, CP 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an intersting person! A champion athlete who won a Gold medal in Ice Hockey, for Britain (probably happens all the time in Canada)!!!DerbyCountyinNZ 23:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility in the "good news" category: Joachim Spremberg. By the way, I hope you don't mind me bringing these things up on your talk page... it's getting kind of long... Cheers, CP 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries!! Can't keep track of everything so it all helps!DerbyCountyinNZ 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Richards

Just to let you know, there's an error on your user page. Thomas Richards (athlete) of the Marathon is deceased. Cheers, CP 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The DoD has just been added in the last couple of days. I had a feeling he might have already died...DerbyCountyinNZ 04:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another recently added DoD: Amelia Piccinini. Cheers, CP 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I suspect there are a few more out there that will eventually be updated. Btw, I had a quick look on the OlyMAD site for a few swimmers but there is too much information missing.E.g. of the 1932 Japanese 4x200 relay squad of 6 there is a DoD for only 1, whereas the last USA swimmer from the same event died in the 1990s!DerbyCountyinNZ 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Piccinini's replacement Klavdia Tochonova is deceased as well. Cheers, CP 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

More bad news: John Woodruff died on October 30. Cheers, CP 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a real shame! Well, I suppose they all are, but he was a biggie...DerbyCountyinNZ 08:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to this site Marjorie Clark is deceased as well (tot means dead in German). I'm not sure how reliable it is, but all the other ones on the site that were listed as dead (they have many Olympians from different fields) were either listed as "possibly living" or were dead. Clark was the only one that was listed in the "Living people" category. I added the information, but what are your thoughts? Cheers, CP 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, although it's likely she is deceased I think I'll wait for confirmation, and preferably a DoD. OlyMAD has DoDs for non-medallists and even non-finalists so missing a medallist would be unusual if not unlikely!DerbyCountyinNZ 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not having much luck with your lists! Delbert Mann (oldest and earliest Academy Award winner for Best Director) has died. Cheers, CP 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope it's not some sort of curse!!!DerbyCountyinNZ 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Herb McKenley has died. Whatever you do, please don't add me to any tables of yours. =P Cheers, CP 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! They're falling faster than the WWI vets!!DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lillian Palmer has been deceased since 2001. Cheers, CP 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

John Winter of the high jump died on December 5. Cheers, CP 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Violet Webb's obituary, all British female athletes born before her (February 3, 1915) are deceased. Cheers, CP 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, always thought it was likely that if there were any still alive from the 1930s there would be some news about them somewhere.

This may be of use to you - it lists the five oldest Canadian living Olympians as of Summer 2005. Of those, the first three (Tancock, Saunders and Meretsky) have already died. It's notable because it indicates that Eva Dawes and Dorothy Brookshaw must have died, otherwise they'd be listed (and certainly, as medal winners, it's highly unlikely that they would have been overlooked). Cheers, CP 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem so. Strange that there is no reference to her death online, I would have thought it would be mentioned somewhere...

Hey Derby, I noticed that on your Olympic Swimming page, you list Alan Ford as one of the oldest living competitors... but he died in November 2008. Just thought that you might want to know! Cheers, CP 06:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Puck Oversloot as well, it would seem. Cheers, CP 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, when I checked the pre-1948 (didn't get as far as 1948) names yesterday Puck Oversloot's death hadn't been added!!

NZ-geo-stubs

Gidday, fan of the Rams! This is just a short note to say that, since there are now a huge number of New Zealand geography stubs, each region has its own stub template. So if you're making any more stubs like Port Underwood (good work, BTW!), then you can add {{Marlborough-geo-stub}} rather than the genetic {{NZ-geo-stub}}. Cheers! Grutness...wha? 00:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll make sure I check for the region next time!!DerbyCountyinNZ 00:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest Olympians

I see that you are gathering info about oldest olympians. I have couple of more for you, hope these help:

• If to believe Hungarian Olympic Committee, then Zoltan Soós-Hradetzky (bronze medallist in shooting in 1932) died just two months short of his 105th birthday in February 2007 [2] (under Sportolónév type Hradetzky and hit enter, no direct link possible).

• The oldest lived Olympic medallist to my knowledege was Finland's Jalmari Kivenheimo. ISOH Obituary (pdf document).

• Sweden's Count Louis Pehr Sparre (4th place in fencing in 1912) lived over 101 years [3].

Also Yevgeni Maskinskov died already in 1985. I have edited his page accordingly.

Gh 12:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a fun one: Dirk Janssen, oldest Olympian (with or without a medal) ever. Cheers, CP 17:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you. I'm surprised that the BOA missed a medalist as obvious Godfrey Rampling! Cheers, CP 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So am I!!!

A couple things

1. As per the source on his page, Bob Bennett (athlete) died in 1974.
2. Under Oldest and Earliest Olympic Medalists in Track and Field (male), one of the columns says "madillist"
3. Note #13 should read 1936 instead of 1926 I think

I would correct #2 and #3 myself, but some people don't like having their User pages edited by others. Cheers, CP 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed! And have made separate pages. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you a Kiwi?

i.e. Are you Zealander??--123FM (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed!

Thank you!--123FM (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment on List of the verified oldest people

A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand at the Beijing Olympics

Hi. I notice you've been removing the red links from the article New Zealand at the 2008 Summer Olympics. This is contrary to standard procedure. If you look at the articles for other countries, you'll see that all athletes have links, red or blue depending on whether or not the article exists yet. The reason is simple: Often, many different articles will contain a same athlete's name, and those red links will all simultaneously turn blue once the article about the athlete is created. It makes things simpler and more efficient. Aridd (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this applied differently on many other (non-Olympic) pages. The problem is that the pages don't get created leaving a mess of redlinks which may sit there indefinitely. No-one seemed to be doing anything about the NZ Olympic medalists until I created all the missing pages, and most of them were far more notable than the redlinks on the 2008 team. It is reasonable to assume that a great many non-medal winners might never have their own page especially if they have never won (and don't later) a world championship event or similar. I wouldn't be surprised if a page created for someone who was merely selected for the Olympics and was in no other way notable would sooner or later come up as Afd. Cheers. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it to your discretion. I've been creating articles on various past and present Olympians, and I've found red links to be useful in that regard, but I also see your point about many of them being destined to remain red links indefinitely. Aridd (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How have you not gotten one yet???

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For an incalculable amount of work and dedication recently that has, until now, gone somewhat unappreciated. Cheers, CP 02:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Swimming records

DerbyCountyinNZ, centralised discussion of how to standardise articles on swimming records is taking place at User:Yboy83/Records in swimming project/Discussion. All suggestions are welcome. For what is worth, a reference to newspaper article gives further information that the official list may not give, such as the meet where the record set, whether the record was set in a heat, semi, relay etc. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Surviving silent film actresses

Since you seem to be interested in this subject, you might be interested in knowing about Adele De Garde. Cheers, CP 03:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And Mona Ray. Cheers, CP 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sporting notability

Is there a clear Wikipedia guideline on the notability of sporting events? I think the Women's World Chess Championship only takes place every 2 years. PatGallacher (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Longevity claims

Greetings,

I attempted to add the following reference for Elizabeth Johnson:

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4285982&nav=2CSf

Of course that was in 2005...Ryoung122 08:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lazy, if you wish to add the other "last update known"'s, I'd appreciate it. Since it seems that there is a pattern of news organizations reporting on an unverified claim, then not following up on it, a lot of these cases grow stale, and after a time people go "where did that come from"? Sadly, the Baji Safaorva story was on Lexis-Nexis news in 2006, but they have reorganized their database and I can no longer find the Azerbajiani story. However, she is still on the GRG page here, which could be a possible site: http://www.grg.org/Adams/J.HTM

Sincerely, Ryoung122 19:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"summarise events only"

I got you good. "(→September: Rmv excess text; this page is iintended to summarise events only)" Okay so the edit you made is definitely right. But there is a problem, take look at 2012 in December. Yup, please help me summarize Dec. 21, and remove Dec. 23 as it is speculation. Okay? Get to it (okay seriously, I really hate that huge story instead of a sentence). So please do something about it, I have tried it but have gotten reverted. Thanks and you will need luck. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, another section about the same thing on 2012, enjoy 2012#Metaphysical predictions. LOL Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That whole calendar entry really should not be there (on many levels)! Short of making a request to the Years Project to intercede (which is what I had to resort to to clean up 2008) it looks like any attempt to remove, or even reduce, the entry will just be reverted. And if we're talking huge quantities of non-notables try 2008 in music! It's so bad I gave up on it... Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, you are definitely right. I came to you because you probably have more experience than I do, but still of-course that page can't be fixed by just one or two, so it's time to get some more people who are experts and sysops and get 'em to work. I am going talk to User:Arthur Rubin for now and soon other experts and then start a discussion on 2012:talk. I hope I make it to the finish line. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Living Supercentenarians

Regarding the below edits,

Current revision as of 00:33, 14 September 2008 (edit) (undo)DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 238233480 by 87.11.141.137 (talk)The column is for country of residence only)

perhaps a separate column for "country of birth" might be warranted? The current format has room for expansion...Ryoung122 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Would you like to have rollback? It's an efficient way of reverting vandalism, but should only be used for blatant vandalism and not in a content dispute.-gadfium 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So that's what that is! Have seen it used but didn't know how. Yes, I'd like to give it a go. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand head of State in 1800

Hi. Thank you for your clarification, and for all your work on those articles. However, the issue of British rule over New Zealand prior to the ToW, even nominal rule, seems to me disputable. British authorities in the 1830s clearly considered that they had no jusrisdiction. The Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand was formally recognised in the UK, and Hobson was instructed to obtain the consent of chiefs for annexation, indicating quite clearly that New Zealand was not yet British territory. Letters from New Zealand in the late 1830s expressed fears of potential French annexation; settlers obviously believed that New Zealand was not yet British. Of course, you're right that the boundaries of NSW included New Zealand, but the British themselves don't seem to have viewed that as sufficient. It seems to me a little odd to say that King George was head of State in New Zealand in 1800. I'll leave it in, now that there's the footnote, because technically it's not entirely incorrect, but it was at best a detail of legal fiction. In any case, thanks again for your good work. Aridd (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm fine with leaving things as they are, with the footnote to clarify the ambiguity. Or perhaps the footnote could be moved into the text of the article itself. Aridd (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 : Alexei Cherepanov

He may not be internationally notable, but he does seem to have articles in 9 non-English languages. I'm not going to put him back in, but it's probably not worth edit-warring about. Also, I'm going to be off-wiki for at least 10 hours, so there's no urgency to respond. I just wanted to let you know why I put him back in. The other ones were clearly unsuitble or had less than 9 foreign-language articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why

Isn't this edit a little WP:POV? Jonathan321 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but it's the only thing on the news back here in the states. Jonathan321 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of longest lived state leaders

Would you mind giving input on my last two postings?

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

WikiProject Years

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad

List of Living Supercentenarians

           Derby, you are missing the point. Throw the emotions out the window and let's consider the facts:

Validated Supercentenarian Cases (Data Analysis) as of June 15, 2007 *data below does not include living cases mortality rate age number surviving deaths yearly Cumulative 123 0 122 1 -1 100.00% 100.00% 121 1 0 0.00% 99.90% 120 2 -1 50.00% 99.90% 119 3 -1 33.33% 99.80% 118 3 0 0.00% 99.70% 117 5 -2 40.00% 99.70% 116 10 -5 50.00% 99.50% 115 23 -13 56.52% 98.99% 114 62 -39 62.90% 97.69% 113 126 -64 50.79% 93.76% 112 264 -138 52.27% 87.32% 111 508 -244 48.03% 73.44% 110 994 -486 48.89% 48.89%

Age 110 is not "extremely rare" (perhaps very rare) but age 115 certainly is.

The whole point of the "longevity claims" article and list are that there are quite a number of claims to extreme age that cannot be verified AND range from somewhat to highly unlikely to be true. Many of the cases on the "List B" on this page are, in fact, LIKELY to be true, based on evidence already existing.

Secondly, there is the issue of the claim in context: if someone claims to be 110, even 111, that is not claiming to be the world's oldest person, and therefore less controversial. If someone claims to be 115, 117, 122, 125, 132, etc we are going from "oldest living person" to ages never reached. Where do we draw the lines? To me, drawing lines at ages is more fair than by nations. Having age 110-112 as a sort of "waiting list" to see if the case will be verified makes sense. If a claim gets to 113 and is still not verified, it makes sense that we can begin with a value judgment: less likely to be true. If a claim gets to 131, virtually impossible to be true.

The bottom line is that CP claims that "BLP" must be respected...let's be fair here. We begin at age 110 with giving a sort of "neutral" perspective for cases in List B. Especially if the case gets to a point where they are older than the current oldest living person AND not accepted, then there is a reason to consider the case in a "grey area." The problem with "older than the oldest living person" cutoff is that, sometimes, a Jeanne Calment will come along. Should we then think that 119 is true, simply because it's less than Calment? A cutoff of 113, or 115 if you want to be generous, seems like a reasonable compromise.

Thirdly, the GRG list, or any list that has criteria for applications, is going to be somewhat exclusionary. When the field of age verification research began in the 1870s with William Thoms, he compared the UNVALIDATED claims from folklore with the VALIDATED claims from life insurance policy holders. The result? True, every extreme case from folklore proved false or unvalidatab (with a woman aged 106 mentioned as the oldest possibly-true case he reviewed), but based on life insurance policies and proven records alone, Mr Thoms could not identify anyone older than 103. Now, is that how long people lived back then? We know today that age 108 was achieved in 1837. Hence, there is also a risk of being overly skeptical.

The goal of Wikipedia is to present a pluralistic approach to discussion that employs major viewpoints. Here, we have:

A. The first list, a sort of "skeptics list" with the GRG list.

B. Cases not yet verified but "recently discovered." Note that the track and field governing body, if an apparent world record is set, calls the record "pending," often for several months, until officially accepted. Here, a list B should be in the principle of "pending."

C. The longevity claims list: let's face it, if three years have gone by an a record has not been accepted, then it's no longer "pending." When it comes to extreme age claims, it makes sense to have a level 3, "longevity claims," that are a sort of backburner case...not proven true, but still possible.

D. Finally, the longevity myths list: cases 130+ are far beyond the realm of considering them anything more than scientifically frivilous. But, just as there is a view that accepts religious beliefs, so it makes sense to report on the BELIEVED age of extreme claims, both for historical reference and also for those persons interested.

The current Wikipedia lists on verified, pending, grey area, and far-out cases is a four-viewpoint approach that allows the reader to choose which level of belief they want to go with. Thus, there is reason to keep this list. Discussions of what approach should be used are still malleable, but first the issue needs to be resolved as to why.

Now, might I also interject that the "last living veterans" lists to SOME are violations of Wiki policy: "original research" or what have you. Also note that there are levels of cases:

A. Officially accepted cases--such as Harry Patch

B. Unofficial but documentable cases--such as French veterans who served "less than 3 months"

C. WWI-era cases--possibly veterans by interpretation of service, such as Aarne Arvonen

D. Unlikely claims--the person made a claim in the media, such as William Olin or Jim Lincoln, but the case is unlikely to be true.

E. Outright frauds--cases such as Merlyn Kreuger, which have been debunked.

I realize now that for both WWI-veteran lists and "Oldest People" lists, we have the first four categories covered, but not an article on the 5th category: debunked cases. Perhaps we should be ADDING, not deleting, an article. Why? The purpose of a "debunked cases" page is to show how common it is for a case to be false, and how expert debunk it. Let's not forget that all this existed before I was even born. Walter Williams claimed to be the last Civil War veteran at 117, but his claim was debunked in 1959 by a NY Times reporter.Ryoung122 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyperventilating over citations

What if we deleted veterans who died in year X that don't have citations?

By the way, if you are a member of the WOP webgroup you can obtain citations that way. Ryoung122 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1929

Could you pick 25 deaths from this article that are most essential? Post the list on the talk page and I'll see how it compares to mine. Wrad (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. Make it 10. Wrad (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So, how about births? If we had to cut it to 25, hypothetically. Wrad (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GRG Typos

Greetings, Dr Coles sometimes misspells names, so any newly-added case is not certain until I double-check it. "Florence" Poe is correct.

Sincerely Robert Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Dear DerbyCountyinNZ, I am sorry because the 2009 page met the guidelines. User: AliDincgor Please erase this after reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDincgor (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Martin

I am just wondering why he was removed he have the 9 different pages for other Wiki's as it asked? Cheers Kyle1278 14:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK well thanks for explaining. Cheers Kyle1278 23:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikirun

Although your list of oldest Olympic medalist is not allowed in Wikipedia, it would be very welcomed on www.wikirun.com. Could you port it over or give me permission to do so? I think you would enjoy being a wikirun editor. Racepacket (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of New Zealand

OK I have found a home for my reference to the expansion of the Weeslyn Missionaries in New Zealanad bullet point that was removed by a couple of people for no good reason... the importance of this event is at least as significant as some of the other evets of non precedent nature for the timline.... I have added it to 1835 in New Zealand... I am new to Wikipedia and the vibe from some editors is quite pompus... to be frank... in addition, I am adding the reference to this excellent resources of more detailed timeline information to the generic timeline -see also- section. So anyone wanting to dig a bit deeper can do so...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juddo (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GLAM-WIKI =

Dear DerbyCounty,

I was advised you would be a good person to metion this to...

I was just wondering whether you had heard about the event we (Wikimedia Australia) are running in Canberra next month for the Gallery, Library, Archive and Museum (GLAM) sector in Aus. and NZ to come together with the Wikimedia community. you can read about here at glam.wikimedia.org.au We have a couple of attendees from NZ including the national library and I thought it very important to try to get some NZ wikimedians to come over. What do you think? Also, we are offering bursaries as discussed here

Please pass this message on to other NZ Wikimedians who might be interested.

Sincerely, Witty Lama 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mitsuharu Misawa

You seem to be removing information from 2009 without first working toward a consensus on removing him. Should you not try to contibute something to the discussion before deleting information? There was no consensus to remove the information, but you are acting as if there is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty clear consensus to add. Several people have presented valid reasons for including him, while people opposed have simply stated "non notable" with nothing to support it, made the (obviously nonsensical) statement that professional wrestling doesn't have a global audience, or stated that wrestlers are most famous among people who follow wrestling (naturally, a similar argument could be made for almost anyone involved in sports or the arts). Because nobody has bothered to give a valid argument opposing his inclusion, it seems safe to say that consensus (a weighing of the valid arguments rather than a majority vote) has been reached. Shall I add him back in? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I do same to

I will remove the World War I link from my page then too. And by the way, the Spanish Civil War doesnt relate to World War I neither, and u still have it on the World War I veterans page.--Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at LCA?

Dear DerbyCountyinNZ,
Hey man.. Its tanman32123 you and me seem to be having a disagreement on something. the oldest people page IS WRONG MAN it is i stood on a guys grave that said he was 116 years old but hes not on this site. so i added him and u keep deleting it.. check this link and u will know im right... hes 2nd oldest guy and 8th oldest ever. i re did it. and im going to keep doing so till you come to your senses. click on my link! read it at least... http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~clifford/Peel.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanman32123 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stonehenge

I didn't mean to be a party pooper by reverting all the comments there - we must have been close to an e/c, and I just thought it was easier to revert than cut & paste the deleted comments back in - but if you want to revert back to your version that's fine by me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it back. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ft. Hood shooting on the 2009 page

I beg to differ that it doesn't involve inclusion. It was documented by many interneational news organisations (which is a major criteria of inclusion in the article). And if the standard has changed, shouldn't all incidents be excluded as well. What about the major event on March 3 of 2009 where less people were killed, but it occured in the middle-east so its okay. Or what about the Columbine high school massacre in 1999. Will you exclude that as well? I'm not the most US-centric person, but you shouldn't exclude major events like that just because they take place in the United States. (Tigerghost (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the move I was going to put it in the Canada section but entered in wrong location.

Move to Canada section

Thank you for the move entered it in wrong location.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue954 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1936 Olympians

Hey Derby, I noticed that you added information that Alfred Proksch and Gabre Gabric-Calvesi were the final two active competitors from 1936 and used the SR blog to cite it, but that information is a little out of date since at least one more, Noel Oxenbury, is still active. Given that the update blog itself isn't certain that the Proksch and Gabric-Calvesi are the last, combined with Oxenbury, maybe we should just remove that fact from the two pages? Cheers, CP 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I fancied up the reference then. Cheers, CP 23:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the catch on the oldest verified update I had done. I was doing the update with two kids crawling all over me so I suspected I might have an error or two in there. aremisasling (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2009, again

This is the second time you and I have conflicted, but how is the Pope's tackling considered not notable. Need I remind you of how massive and influential the catholic church is and at how notable the Pope is? What is the reasoning for its removal? This is an odd one because I'm near atheist, and I'm defending the catholic church here. (Tigerghost (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

I need your guidance, hehe

I recently split the 2010 in music page up and for what I can say is that the change has been quite controversal. I formatted it to fit the standards shared by 2010 in television. For example, 2009 in music is extremely long, so I regionalized 2010 into 2010 in American music, 2010 in British music, ect... Clearly there is an American bias in this, and the reason I ask you for information is that you have shown yourself to be quite interested in keeping Wikipedia against a US-bias, as we have clashed several times before. The persuing debate can be seen at Talk:2010 in music. A global page on music is unrealistic at this point, they are too long, but it seems that the argument is going against my favor due to many American editors... How should I procede? - or shall I concede? (Tigerghost (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

NEW ZEALAND HISTORY

please do not change the history i have added as this is acurate it is not just your page any1 can write and add new things in it thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.159.106 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being a little too harsh in removing the good faith additions to 2010 in New Zealand. The editor opened a discussion of his edits at talk:Timeline of New Zealand history, where I advised him that the individual year articles would be more appropriate. By all means tidy the edits, but wholesale reversion seems unnecessary.-gadfium 08:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Lead Article

Hey, please change the opening sentence in 2010 to the example on the bottom of the WP:RY discussion page.

Continental738 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed here

Greetings,

Pages like THIS have become infected with little more than "fanboy" wishes. Many of the cases do not have citations that they are the "oldest person" in their nation. Even for those that do, I think the cases that do not meet international standards should be colored with a reddish background to distinguish them.

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

Finally, at the "living supercentenarians" article, it seems that Proposal 1 (add a non-HIE list) and Proposal 2 (drop the HIE requirement) have the most support.Ryoung122 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DUKW

Dear Sir, My edits to the article were constructive. I am suprised that you used your opinion, and not the facts to describe my edit as vandalism. This is simply not good enough. The fact is, that the British did help to design the DUKW, and therefore, they should be credited.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Stagyar Zil Doggo and Stonehenge

Hey there. Stagyar Zil Doggo here. You undid an edit I made to Stonehenge, and since I've already defended it to user:Richerman, I thought I'd leave you a note about it here rather than risk edit-warring. You described my edit, at least parts of it, as "incorrect, unnecessary and uncited." I've been back over it and, honestly, I don't think so - I think it makes the article read better, which was the only intention I ever had. If you review the edit you'll find that it is in fact sourced, and I should add that no sources were removed (compare it to a previous revision, if you like), and nothing was added or altered that required citation (no quotes, no studies - no nothin').

I admit to changing the word "purposely" to "purposefully" while under the impression that purposely was not a word at all, but I've looked them both up in a dictionary since then, and am now well aware of the gravity of my misunderstanding. I fully intend to commit penitent suicide, but before I go I want to make you aware that while the words are not always interchangeable, they both work in this context. At least I think so. Perhaps you should look them up as well. If you do, and you're still of the same opinion afterward, then by all means change it - like I said, I don't care to make a thing out of this - I don't care. Just make it its own edit so I don't have to redo the unobjectionable parts of the original piece by piece. Stagyar Zil Doggo (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Greetings,

Can you block (or request a block) for anon IP's that continue to vandalize the supercentenarian list pages, such as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.86.229.132

Also, beyond that we have ridiculous editing by many kids, such as quoting Wikipedia as a source of itself. This is completely illogical, and we need to perhaps make it more difficult for novice editors to edit these pages.Ryoung122 19:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Imich cleanup tag

You added a cleanup tag without mention on the discussion page what you think needs cleanup. Shortening the article would make it a stub.Hepcat65 (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

~If you had read the linked interview, you would have seen this: “I was an active sportsman,” says Dr. Imich, “and participated in soccer, boxing, running, jujitsu, javelin, discus, skiing, sailing, and swimming. I even took fourth place in one of the Polish swimming finals.” Now, I have improved the referencing and split the text in a better format. "Editors are STRONGLY encouraged to try to perform clean-up themselves before posting articles to this list" it says on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page, so if you still have concerns about the article, please help edit it. Hepcat65 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

There is a discussion about whether Alexander Imich should be included on the list.

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

The discussion is here

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your reply about the meetup in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New_Zealand. Linnah (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What????????

I note your revert to 1805 in New Zealand, and fully support it. What I don't understand is this edit by me, which indicates I deliberately changed [[John Cuff (politician)|John Cuff]], politician]] to [[John Cuff]] (politician). I didn't change it at all. I can't see how this happened, so do we have a glitch somewhere?Moriori (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

2010

World Cup removal - my mistake, thanks for catching it for me. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

2010

You need a hug! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Erica Blasberg

She died May 9, 2010 and was a sports figure and as I recall many ports figures are listed in deaths, please do not delete this again! Jdcrackers (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dio 2010 deaths

Yeah, the hiding of the different language articles isn't one of my favorite things about the new Vector skin. That and the search bar up in the upper right hand. I could easily switch back to the Monobook skin, but eh. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Blasberg was an American Citizen, she has every right to be on the Twenty Ten deaths. She was an avid tennis player! Shall I go and find every thing on her? You are the one being obnoxious, by not letting me list her death on here! She died in May and I am sure her family, friends, and colleagues would love to see her in the May Twenty Ten deaths. Why is this such a problem? I found many people that are sports figures that haven't even achieved her level that are listed! I am going to go to the board and resolve this problem if you do not include Ms. Blasberg! Thank You!Jdcrackers (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Deaths

Why are you taking my deaths off the 2010 death page. these people are very important to society!Jdcrackers (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the comments on your talk page under 2010 and 2010 - Redux. ttonyb (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Fanboy List Disaster

Greetings,

Check this out:

List of the oldest living men

There are several issues: some unvalidated cases are included, but not others. There also seems to be no understanding that newsmedia-reported cases are a minority of reality, and the younger the age listed, the more-distorted the information presented. There had been a listing of 105-year-olds on the talk page. I deleted those younger than 107 on the talk page.

However, I'm still not happy with the current format. This needs some discipline.Ryoung122 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Some consider vuia first?

Wikipedia contains numerous references to people who got off the ground without assistance (and flew farther) before Vuia. See first flying machines. And I've yet to see any discussion of verifiable documentation for his flight. So how is it worth mentioning that 'some' believe Vuia was first? 'Some' people believe all kinds of things, but I have to wonder if highly improbable beliefs( The belief that Vuia flew, but none of the others did )have any place in History Of Flight 1906. Romaniantruths (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You persistant bastard!

Sig

You appear to be a good editor. But I must tell you, your signature on talk pages is (on my computer) completely unreadable. Are you so in love with it that you would not consider changing the colors to something more readable? 98.71.218.226 (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sp

It's "privilege", not "privelege". Change it before the idiots notice! ):- Moriori (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 3Revert Rule

Greetings,

Anthony Croes has reverted this list about 5 or 6 times. He was reverted twice by me, but also by ClueBOT and by Discospinster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_the_verified_oldest_men&action=history

I think his edit is biased. Why have a top-135 males but only a top-100 females?Ryoung122 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had already responded. Good work!Ryoung122 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Hi DerbyCountyinNZ. I have made a contribution re Mr Choules on the surviving veterans talk page which may be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldovanmickey (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Old folks

In regards to [4], please also see [5]. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jozef Kowalski

Kudos on your edit to the Kowalski article. Your edit was a good one, as opposed to the ridiculous blanket reverting of good edits done by another editor, whom you seem to know. Please see my comment on the talk page of "List of the oldest living men", and tell me what you think. (If you don't mind.) If that page were to say something along the lines of the way you phrased it in the Kowalski article, then I would have no problem moving him back to "unverified". Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I more or less did that, based on your compromise edit to the Kowalski article. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That article is fanboy fluff (see my previous contributions on the talk page). I'm not wasting my time trying to tidy up such an unencyclopedic article. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I agree completely that the article is unencyclopedic. I'd rather we didn't have that article, but if it is going to be here, then I feel it might as well be fixed up as much as possible. I certainly don't blame you for wanting nothing to do with it. 2tuntony (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest people

Why can't the list top at 100 people only? While it's true that the lede begins as "...a list of the 101 verified oldest ...", the header of the table reads "100 verified oldest people ever". It seems silly to include a 101st person (Tanabe). Even though the ranks are tied with him and Beatrice Mears, it makes more sense to cut it off at 100 people exactly. 218.186.12.254 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There are two tied for 100th, they are both 100th so they both stay. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look

You recently voted in a Articles for Deletion debate regarding the Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke article. Since your vote, I have completely re-worked the article and added reliable sources to it. In light of this, could you please reword your vote as a response that relates to the re-worked article (whether that be Keep or Delete)? Silverseren^C 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Aviation year articles

I am working on adding citations per your request. Mdnavman (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

Problems with "[Year] in aviation" navigation template

I note that there are a couple of problems with the navigation template -- which has no edit option allowing em to go ina nd fix it -- in the "[Year] in aviation" articles, and since you contacted me about the need for citations, I thought I would bring them up with you in case you know how to fix them or can refer them to someone who does:

-- The "19th century in aviation" template has a formatting error in it, with an "align" code appearing in non-edit mode. -- The templates are not easy to navigate because they are not arranged by decade and there is no easy way to move from one decade to another, or indeed from one year to anothern except among the years (seven or so years) that appear when one is in the article for any given year. The equivalent maritime templates allow easier movement between years and decades, as do other aviation templates. Could something be done to follow the lead of other aviation and maritime templates and make the navigation easier?

Best way to reach me is via my talk page. Thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

Month/Format in "YEAR X in aviation" articles

You contacted me to say that the "international" date format (Date/Month) should be used in the "Year X in aviation" articles. However, only a tiny handful of those articles (a six or seven of those between 1901 and 1910) use that format. Almost all of them use "Month/Date" (the pre-18th century, 18th century, and 19th century articles and every annual article from 1911 through the present use the "Month/Date" format. It seems there should be just one format for all, and that it is easier to change six or seven of them than it is to change around 105 of them. Until today I just used the existing format on each page. Will you be changing all of other 100-plus to the "Date/Month" format? Or will we just have a few years in "Date/Month" and the 95% of them in "Month/Date"? Mdnavman (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)mdnavman

2009

How is the opening of the largest privately funded construction project in the US not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge proposals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

2010

I added a section to the discussion page regarding Bob Guccione's notability. I will wait until someone approves it before I restore his death to the page. Iloveapphysics (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DerbyCountyinNZ. You have new messages at Talk: 2010.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eunice Sanborn on List of living supercentenarians

Yes, the addition of the words might not make much difference for some, but that's still better than nothing. Perhaps we could reword it to take on a harsher tone to deter vandals? Brendan (talk, contribs) 11:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DerbyCountyinNZ. You have new messages at Talk:List of living supercentenarians.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The LVT(U)X2 Goliath in the LVT page sections

Dear Derby, Thanks for moving my entry to where it belongs. LVT(U)X2 Goliath as you can see is now a red link. I hope to do some more research and do a small sub so it will become a green link. Finding a public domain photo, is going to be the problem though, unless I want to go to the Washington, DC and search the archives. Again, thanks for correcting my error and moving that small paragraph to where it belongs. I notice from the messages on your talk that pages you deal with also have a serious problem now with vandals, like certain weapon pages -- hand grenades. How long does it take the college kids to settle down after home coming season???? I revert four or five "A DAY". Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please participate in a discussion about users with conflicts of interest editing the topic of longevity. Your name has been mentioned here. JJB 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05 12 November 2010 UTC

Recent deletions

Hi there; those archived pages were flagged as non-controversial routine housekeeping deletions. But if they were not I am happy to resore them; I will go now from here to do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi. Regarding this, I wanted to remind you that consensus is not formed by voting but my making coherent arguments. Did you have any? --John (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And regarding this, which "point" do you think I am trying to make? Do you have an actual reason to restore the edits that you did? If you do it would be great to hear it. --John (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not waste your, or more importantly my, time with attempts petty editorial point-scoring. I regard this sort of editing as little better than vandalism. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And this opinion is based on? Are you familiar with WP:VAND? You may find reading it will help you to know what is and isn't regarded as vandalism. Still waiting for you to answer my concerns in article talk as well. --John (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have some trouble understanding basic English! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John asked me at my talk page to look at the above exchange. I would like to advise you that your comments above are far below the standard of discourse expected by any editor. I recommend that you focus on commenting on content, not contributors, as per WP:NPA. Thanks!  Sandstein  19:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

What exactly are your objections to my wording? The dead aren't getting any undeader. See WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Marcus Qwertyus 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Explain exactly how drawing upon multiple references to make an claim is not synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 04:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is adding ideas to draw a conclusion. Adding numbers to make a total is not the same as adding ideas. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2010

Hello! I wished to ask why you reverted my edit in the 2010 article? Well, you did good removing the picture, but why the edit in deaths? I had added the death of Egon Ronay, who was a famous food critic. Thanks,--Sainsf<^> (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the minimum criteria for inclusion is 9 non-English articles. He has 1. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the criteria. Well, happy new year 2011 to you!!! Cheers!!!--Sainsf<^> (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OR

My understanding of WP:OR comes down to this: Louis Epstein's material is SELF-PUBLISHED and is therefore OR. Thus, please remove ALL those cases cited by Epstein from the list, as they are trashy and unreliable. Thx. 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.225 (talk)

1907

Thanks for moving the entry. I wasn't aware of the criteria. Cheers! Location (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2011

I'm interested in hearing your opinions on deleting my edit to the 2011 page. From the brief note that I read in the edit history page I would have to disagree with your decision. I've read the Trivia page to gauge the appropriateness of the contribution. Although those guidelines aren't particularly clear, I'd say that this example seems like an appropriate use based off of what is outlined in that document. The rarity of the dates I added contribute to the facts carrying more weight than just general trivia. Another point being that the cultural significance regarding superstitions surrounding the number 11 also provides additional value to this information being shared.

I believe there is enough general interest in the aforementioned information to deem my contribution as an acceptable use of trivia. Should we add it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhoward.ca (talk • contribs) 07:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Coincidental numbering can be made for numerous days in most years. They are not particularly notable and as such have been removed from other Recent Year articles. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
5. Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.

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

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith indicated several meatpuppets including you & me to be banned

DerbyCountyinNZ, I think this is a case of mistaken identity but I thought you should be made aware of Itsmejudith's comment made here in the Enforcement Request case brought by David in DC against NickOrnstein for NickOrnstein's persistent failure to explain why he keeps undoing or reverting edits made by other editors.

Itsmejudith feels that RYoung122 (the editor that was topic-banned) are continuing to collude several other editors on "The 110 Club" forum where I am an administrator. She has included your name for some reason. I have noted here, to the best of my knowledge, that you are not a member of The 110 Club forum. Thanks, CalvinTy 18:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your editing of date articles

Your editing seems to be quite hardline and is losing us content. Your interpretations also seem overly severe, and you seem to be exhibiting ownership on the recent years articles. Please take a step back and re-read the guideline and consider whether your interpretation of what an internationally important event is agrees with the guideline. We're ending up with articles that have little record of what most sources would consider to be the important events - I just read that you removed Obama getting elected from 2008, whereas most round ups of 2008 would include that as one of the most important events. And we do aim to follow other sources, right? When you're making glaringly incorrect edits like that, you've got a problem. For another example of how your editing is being disruptive, this edit removes content, with an edit summary suggesting it belongs in another article. But did you add it to that other article, 1908 in art? No, you didn't. Why not? Fences&Windows 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the starting or beginning of a painting no-one outside the art community is likely to have heard of, particularly at the time, an internationally notable event? The reason there are Year in Topic articles is for entries that are notable within that topic but not outside it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the 2010 article.

Julia Gillard is the first female prime minister of Australia, there is no reason why that should not be mentioned as she is now world-known. According to Forbes 2010, she ranks in the top 100 most powerful women (in general) [6]. Removing this piece of information is exactly like removing Barack Obama from the 2008 article. What is more interesting is her own Wikipedia article with WikiProject Politics rates her as High Priority "Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin."

In response to reading Wikipedia:Recent years you have forgotten that there was not an election before June since 2007. "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election)." <- First Women leader of the country...yes that make a significant change to the country. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"1999- November 27 – The left-wing Labour Party takes control of the New Zealand government, with leader Helen Clark becoming the second female Prime Minister in New Zealand's history."

Look fammiliar? I'll be reverting your edits (the removal of my factual edits) ASAP as they are un-called for, and considered "Unfair". -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, 1999, and any year before 2004, does not come under the scope of the WP:RY guidelines. I have no problem with anyone removing entries such as the one you mention above even if it does not come under that scope as the reasons are just as applicable. The same goes for the Obama entry, which I have tried to have removed for the same reasons, unfortunately given the nature of many wiki users that has not been possible, yet. I will continue to revert your edit unless you get consensus to include it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I most definately will, If it is the last thing I do. The top of my long "to do" list. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In a few minutes time, I would like you to take a visit to the 2010 talk page, You will plesently surprised with my findings. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Very glad to see Pr. Barack Obama back in his rightful place in the Years article(s); In around June 2011 (JG's 1 Year) We will see me re-adding Julia into the 2010 article, along with new international sources...I don't know...Contributions made by her and her government in supporting New Zealand at the nations darkest time; or just the the fact that she addressed the US Congress, not too long ago. Why June? You may ask...It marks her 1 year anniversary...and who knows what other significance she can make in such short time. Thank You :) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

None of which makes her becoming PM of Australia any more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, if I wanted your opinion I am sure I would have asked for it. Which I wouldnt want it because your opinion (as shown above) shows how bias towards this, you are. I just came here to tell you the great news! With all these international sources, I will finally be able to proceed, without the "owner" of the article standing in my way. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not the owner of the article, but if you want to listen to the opinion of a pro-wrestling fan then you're probably not going to want a balanced view on editing wikipedia. I am not the only one who does not believe this matter is sufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not the owner of the article, very rich coming from you. You may not be the owner, but yes, you sure do act like it. Balanced view? Derby, please don't even think about lecturing me about "balanced" view, because with all due respect, with what you have shown in the past with this, is that you would not know Balanced Views, even if the meaning hit you. Barack Obama being mentioned in the article, Julia Gillard not included...That doesn't sound to balanced to me. However, I vow, that will most definately change soon. You cannot keep my from writing about Julia on the 2010 article, if I have demonstrated clear significance of her, using International sources.

With respects to you and your agenda (whatever that may be) I prefer opinions from editors who don't act like 'boss', From editors who don't suggest things to Vandal's "Perhaps you could do something more useful like be a speedhump in a carpark?" (yes I have had family that have past away from simmilar car accidents), And finally, an editor who has a Balanced View of the topic. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We have nothing more to discuss. In future stay off my talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 in astronomy

Hi. Why do you consider astronomy events non-notable? Past years have many such entries especially on eclipses. The article is not getting over-filled by these entires and they may often be more significant than the earthly events. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They have in most cases been removed from recent Year articles as consensus has agreed they are not notable. In what way are they "more significant than earthly events"? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They can usually be observed worldwide, which passes the three-continent rule. How does one determine the notability of these events, for example eclipses? Are any astronomical events deemed automatically notable? ~AH1^(TCU) 00:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eclipses are more notable than conjunctions because they are more obvious to the general public. But eclipses are relativley common so one would have to be unusual in some way to be notable enough for inclusion in a general Year article. The 10 January 2010 eclipse, as the longest of the millenium, is deemed to be sufficiently unusual (notable) for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, are any conjunctions important enough for inclusion? Although eclipses are often more distinctly identifiable, they are usually confined to less than half the planet (in the case of total lunar eclipses) or along a narrow path (total solar eclipses; the partial eclipse is visible over a larger area). Meanwhile, conjunctions are usually visible almost worldwide since the planets are located around the Ecliptic, and almost always last longer than 24 hours when the Moon is not a major component. Thus, conjunctions are visible to a greater number of people per occurrence than eclipses. For example, one prominent conjunction occurred on December 1, 2008, when Jupiter and Venus joined in the evening sky to form a triangle with the Crescent Moon, for a total of two planets and the Moon. This event was rare enough that, coincidentally, the 2008 year article actually mentions this event (please do not remove the entry just because I mentioned it!). This year, the month-long conjunction of Venus, Jupiter, Mercury and Mars will occur during the month of May, involving four planets[7]. During two periods, the Moon will join this quadruple meeting, and Uranus actually meets the five objects at the end of April for a total of five planets and the Moon. This is a very rare event, even though fewer people see morning conjunctions than evening ones. What about comets? In 2007, the two most notable comet appearances were Comet McNaught and Comet Holmes. This year, two comets are forecast to reach 6th magnitude, not as nearly as bright as those two, but they are likely to pass within 6° from each other in early October, and later one of them will pass in front of Mars! Please outline any specific criteria for inclusion for celestial events. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This should be taken up on the WP:RY talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry & Possible Resolution

Derby Yes I acknowledge that you did say we don't have anymore to discuss, But I just want to say something. I would like you to know how I feel about this. I just don't think it's "fair" that we have some leaders mentioned and not others. That is the only thing that really irritates me.

Here's the deal: If you are willing to help me out by removing Barack Obama out of the Years articles I will help you by removing Julia as well as being un opposed doing so. It's the only way to clear this dispute. That is the only thing I ask for. The problem shall be resolved. That means you won't have to "worry" about me adding this and adding that.

I would also like to apologise to you, as my comments saying that you are bias, were very misplaced and 'bit of a stretch'. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re inclusion of Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton in the article 2011

Re inclusion of Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton in the article 2011:

Your edit summary suggested, "See talk page, consensus is that this does not merit inclusion."

(A) I don't see any "consensus" there.

(B) This item is obviously of global interest, despite any supposed consensus from a discussion on the Talk page.

(C) The discussion that I see dates from January 2011 - global interest in this event may have changed since then.

If I can remember how to do so, I'm going to ask the wider Wikipedia community to comment on this. I feel confident that the consensus will be that this event merits inclusion in the article 2011. Nevertheless, I will certainly abide by whatever consensus is reached.

Cheers - 189.122.29.43 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I, unlike you, am concient about my reverts, which by the way you've reverted 4 times on the page. Either way, just because I didn't open a topic at its talkpage, does not excludes you from open one. 04:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As the editor making the change you are the one obliged to bring up the matter on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fannie Thomas actually not disputed

Just letting you know that I had provided the source in my edit (prior to your revert) where Fannie Thomas is not shown as being disputed:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/BB1.HTM

Previously, she was disputed only because of her exact age (same principle as Martha Graham), as some sources showed her birth date of April 24 instead of April 14. But, as you can see above, GRG is using April 14. So, her case had been disputed by "at most 10 days". Using the source above, this dispute is nullified.

If you believe that Martha Graham is not disputed, please feel free to remove the colorized background for the disputed cases on Martha Graham's row in the table. Then, you are correct, we would only have 5 remaining disputed cases at this time. Cheers, CalvinTy 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Protector Class OPV

Please find a cited source that classifies the Protector Class OPV as corvettes. Even the RNZN's own web page doesn't classify their OPVs as anything other than OPVs. Likewise if you visited the web page of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Navy you would clearly see that similarly armed and equiped vessels would be classified as patrol vessels or offshore patrol vessels. If you were then to compare these patrol vessels with modern corvettes such as those operated by South Korea and Germany you would see that both these examples of corvettes have substantial surface warfare capabilties in the form of Harpoon surface to surface missiles in addition to capable anti-missile and short range anti-air capability. The Protector class have no such capabilities. If they do please provide examples. The Roisin Class OPV operated by the Irish Naval Service has a 76mm Oto Melera rapid fire gun which is used by numerous Navies and Coast Guards as a anti-missile CIWS where as the Protector class OPV has a 25mm Bushmaster which is optically aimed and has no recognised/credible anti-missile capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwhyte76 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm, there are solid points here, DerbyCounty. The Protector Class OPV's are well short of standards for proper naval vessels. For example, their hulls are not subdivided in a way to survive major damage. The people who sat on whatever committee that approved this, deserve plaudits for what they got right (which is quite a bit) and a bollocking for what they got wrong (which is quite a bit). Please have a go at sorting this stuff out in a more even-handed way. (I was the perpetrator who added the bit about corvettes, and I'm not going to defend it. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)