User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classification of RNZN's Protector Class OPV

Please read over the below comparisons of the Protector Class OPV

These vessels are classified as Off Shore Patrol Vessels as per the RNZN's website's classification for these vessels and in accordance with the Royal Navy's own website's classification of the modified River Class HMS Clyde which has similiar capabilities and armament. In addition to the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) Armidale class patrol boat which has an essentially identical armament as per the RAN's own website modern corvettes

However the Protector Class OPV's lack the anti-missile and vastly superior anti-air and surface capabilitities offered by the Oto Melera 76mm rapid fire cannon. Which has instead been subsituted by the less capable 25mm Navalised Bushmaster cannon.

It woudl be great if you could offer any rational discourse on the above points. Likewise feel free to compare the capabilities and armaments of the Protector Class OPV with any of the current corvettes operated by the South Korean Navy or the modern German Navy. It is an undeniable that the Protector Class OPVs are vastly inferior to any of these modern corvettes in surface, anti-aircraft/missile and in the case of South Korea's Pohang class corvette anti-submarine capability.

Please state any capability the Protector class OPV possesses in terms of surface, air or anti-submarine capability. In addition any defence the Protector Class OPV both active or passive against anti-ship missiles. Finally what missions could the Protector Clas OPV undertake apart from constabulary and civil aid missions in domestic New Zealand waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwhyte76 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to do this. If you disagree with what is written add a "citation needed" tag. If you have alternative information, cite it. And don't add POV statements. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Swimming at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre breaststroke

Swimming isn't a mainstream sport. I think more information is good for the layman my Kiwi friend. Philipmj24 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from being obvious to the vast majority of anyone likely to look at it, it's written extremely poorly: "Because..." is not encyclopedic. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Main centre mayors

I guess you intend to go through the year in new zealand articles to remove Hamilton mayors from "Main centre leaders"? Or only 1907? Moriori (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do it for a while, but have been too busy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Done, up to 1914. The rest will take longer as no-one has bothered to add all the names for all the actual main centres.

Years in Radio reply

Thank you for the heads up. I don't see that you have edited or deleted any of my additions, although all of them are as you pointed out Ameri-centric (in fact they are all Pittsburgh-centric), they do all meet notability standards, if you have a specific one in mind that you think is trivial or minimal please let me know. My intent is only to add very notable firsts or major shifts, the city of Pittsburgh has long been one of the pioneers of the industry so although it may appear at first as an attempt to pump up ones "hometown", they all also meet Wikistandards since the region has continually has been pioneering advancements in the technology. I can see how one or two could be demonstrated as trivial and I'll be happy to discuss those. Thanks for recognizing my hard work. Hholt01 (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at 2011#Predicted_and_scheduled_events, you may be blocked from editing. Pikachu4170 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing content which clearly does not belong is not disruptive editing. And copying and pasting your warnings is even worse. Grow up. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

Drive-by tag spam much? I saw nothing AT ALL that required cleanup. Don't just spam tags; use them for specific things. "May need cleanup" means bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I added the tag on 3 November which resulted in improvements to the article before you added even more improvements didn't justify a tag? Apparently we have different standards as to what justifies tagging an article for cleanup! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


– Plarem (User talk contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 13:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to talk

Derby, Are you going to talk to me, or just revert me? Take a look at the 2011 talk page, please. Wrad (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Derby, it is impossible to reach a consensus when you won't even talk to me. Besides that, consensus is required if WP:RY guidelines are not met, if you want an exception to the rules, as per the first section of WP:RY. That is not the case here. The proposed edits follow guidelines, but you are reverting them anyway, even when there is no consensus for exclusion and, in the case of Occupy, there is a consensus for inclusion, with only you and one other person opposing in the face of several requests to add it, saying that it isn't internationally significant when clearly, as I have demonstrated, it is. You folks on the year pages are a bit too set in your ways, in my opinion, aren't really following world events very well, and are badly misinterpreting WP:RY. Anyone who reads international news sources knows that these two things need to be included. It is painfully obvious. I have stated my reasons for their inclusion on the talk page, and you have ignored them. I do not appreciate that. Please respond to my actual arguments rather than, like a bureaucrat, monotonously misquoting guidelines and reverting me. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Matthews

Not wanting to start an editing war between the two of us, I found it proper to inform you in person that I added Bruce Matthews again to the page 1909. I disagree wholeheartedly with you about him not being notable enough: on the same page I found an Austrian figure skater, an American amateur radio broadcaster and a Spanish footballer... And compared to them the Commander of the army that liberated the northern Netherlands and took part in the Battle in Normandy seems most notable to me. Perhaps the vital part Canadian forces played during the war has been underestimated in your part of the world, but he certainly deserves the mention as far as I am concerned.

Best regards, --Maarten1963 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Americanization of Wikipedia?

The real problem with Wikipedia is that they do not have separate Wikis for the USA, England, Australia, and NZ.

It is patently unfair to Americans (which has more population than the other three countries combined) to have the Anglicisation of Wikipedia.Ryoung122 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based in the USA, however a world wide view is necessary as it is a world wide encylopedia type thing.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

UTC

You should verify what UTC is as the changes you reverted as being incorrect were in fact done after midnight UTC. There is a setting that you can activate to have UTC displayed in the upper right hand corner of Wikipedia.--UnQuébécois (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thames crime

I acknowledge that you have given me a link to WP:News but I do not understand your reasoning. I understanding that WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a newspaper but I also understand that this is more than just a trivial event, as it has involved hundreds of different people from various clubs, organisations, businesses, and other residents in addition to the police. The history of the scenario stretches as far as a year and certain individual incidents over this time period have even recieved their own media coverage. Thanks. -203.97.20.226 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Get a citation for the Protector Class OPVs being considered modern corvettes or talk to someone who can

So basically you are saying you don't have to provide any references to state that the Project Protector OPV could be classified as a modern corvette. Isn't the whole statement that the Project Protector OPVs (which stands for Offshore Patrol Vessel) could be classified as modern corvettes a POV statement especially as this classification is not made anywhere else with no citation provided. Anyway for the interim the "modern corvette" statement should be dropped from the webpage until relevant citations are provided. Even the poster who wrote that statement in the first place is unwilling to defend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwhyte76 (talk • contribs) 22:14 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. My bad. In that case, should I delete the archive page so the bot won't screw it up? Whenaxis about | talk 22:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I think it will be ok to leave the Archive 4 there, the bot should put the archives in Archive 3 until it's full and then should start using Archive 4. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For not replying on Talk:2012#Should the one day downtime of Wikipedia be noted in the 2012 year article? for a weeks' time. – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tuti Yusupova

Please stop reverting my edit which adds Tuti Yusupova to the article Longevity Claims. She is still living and is mentioned in numerous newspapers and printed articles. There is no reason to remove her from the list. The article records the claims of longevity over 110 years. Her claimed age of 131 years is not too old for the article and does not belong in Longevity Myths. I'd appreciate respectful discourse. See the Talk page of said article. Thank you. StickyWikis | talk — 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

I find the colour scheme in your signature somewhat hard to read, and I guess a colour-blind person would find it even harder. I suggest that you use a lighter background and/or darker text, or vice versa. (As a rule of thumb, the contrast ratio between the text and the background ought to be at least 4.5.) ― A. di M.​  20:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am red-green colour deficient, as colour blind is technically misnomer, and have no problem with the signature.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it sticks out like dogs balls canine genitalia... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Besse Cooper

Let's meet at WP:ANI and get a ruling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Talk:Besse Cooper is a more appropriate place; WP:CONSENSUS is the key.  Frank  |  talk  14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. When you recently edited Prior to 1800 in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen Charlotte Sound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of Surviving Veterans of World War I

It has recently come to my attention that the above article has been recently deleted.
In many discussions over the years it was agreed that this list should stay until Mr Józef Kowalski was deceased.
He has now appeared again in the news, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/jozef-kowalski-captain_n_1299186.html
In this article, and in similar articles over the years, he has been referred to as a World War I veteran.
The pros and cons of this debate have been discussed extensively over the years and it has been agreed that Mr Józef Kowalski is a World-War-I-era veteran.
Would you please revert this article to its original status, especially while Mr Kowalski remains in the news.
Thank you Cam46136 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)cam46136
The article has not been deleted, it has been redirected (there is a difference). I was not the one who made the change and in fact if you read the discussion it was not my preferred option. However, there seemed to be consensus to make the change and until someone decides to take up my option it cannot/should not be changed unless there is consensus to do so. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

Regarding your edit today to 1909 in New Zealand, in the time it took you to add the tag you could have googled The Quackery Prevention Act 1908 and seen info such as this TEARA site. Yes, a ref is required and I will add one when I am reasonably comfortable with which one to use. I asked at Talk:WikiProject New Zealand about this but am still unsure. There are a dozen of so other bits of info in that same article that also need refs. I assume you will insert the necessary cn tags! Moriori (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited 1912, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pytheas

As you've edited Stonehenge recently, you might want to look at my recent posts to Talk:Pytheas. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DerbyCountyinNZ/OlympicAthletics

Just a heads up, but Jacqueline Mazéas died July 9. Canadian Paul 22:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. AM currently driving around England with limited internet access. Will hopefully get a chance to update my list when settled in London, in between attending the Olympics! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Furnas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Furnas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1907

Hi, how about some discussion over the 1907 article rather than just reverting each other. Keith D (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your signature

I just wanted to let you know that your signature is rather painful to read. Do you think you could find something with better contrast please? Sven Manguard Wha? 00:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits on September 11-22, 2012?

We are still not sure of the definite cause of these attacks. There is suspicion that it was an organized terror plot, so I changed it to be an indirect statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guphanti (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Suspicion" is not a good enough reason to change the entry. There MUST be a mention of this in the ciatation used. You have repeatedly changed the entry without changing the citation and have been warned that this is not the correct practice. Unless a citation is used which reflects the change it will be reverted. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I added a reference/citation for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guphanti (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history of New Zealand

I've just re-removed the tag from this article. While the section's wording could certainly be improved, it seems basically OK to me. Could you please explain your concerns on the article's talk page rather than just slap a tag on? (or better still, you could simply copy edit this section). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Jackson Quadruplets - List of Multiple Births

The last time you took out the Jackson Quadruplets entry on wikipedia underneath List of Multiple Births it had a cited source stating that they had indeed in fact published their first book. Go check it out right here http://www.hollins.edu/academics/student_achievement/jacksons.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.157.129 (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That might be relevant if they had their own article. As they do not it is superfluous to any notability they might have as a multiple birth. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I'll stop trying to put that entry up if you will put the whole Jackson Quads wikipedia entry back up. They have the right to be there.

The List of multiple births article is for notable multiple births. The Jackson quads' notability is marginal, mainly resting on television appearances which may meet wiki criteria for notability. Why don't you create an article for them? If they are notable then ALL the information about them can go in there. If that article does not get removed for insufficient notability then all that is needed for the multiple births article is a link and a brief description. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then why take out the WHOLE article? They were the first set of identical African-American quadruplets born and adopted in the US. They are also the first set of quadruplets to enroll at Hollins University. How does that not count? I mean this is fine:

The Jackson quadruplets (born in 1992 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana) are Jessica, Mackenzie, Meredith, and Stephanie. Their parents, Stephen and Regina, adopted the four sisters, making them the first identical African-American quadruplets to be adopted in the United States. Currently they live in Fredericksburg, Virginia and are attending college at Hollins University.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.157.129 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Two problems with that. They are the "first African-American quadrupltes to be adopted" not the "first African-American quadruplets" which is actually the Fultz quads born in 1946. The first to be adopted is trivial rather than notable. Secondly, the citation does not work. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you're the one who gets to judge who is put on that page or not. Maybe you're following wikipedia procedures, but the entry was up for years before it was a problem. You may think its trivial but a LOT of people think its notable, especially those girls themselves. They are special just like everyone else on the page.

As the opening paragraph says, the article is for "notable births". Unfortunately for many years noone bothered to check whether the entries being added were notable. As a result people were just adding any multiple birth. As I seem to be the only one concerned with keeping the content of the page inline with not only wiki policies but the actual intent of the article I moved all those entries which seem to have no claim to notability to the talk page until such time as their notability is established. Whether the girls, or "a lot" of other people (who?) think they are notable is irrelevant, wiki is not the place for self-promotion and has guidelines for what and who is considered notable. I repeat, if they are notable then create an article for them. If they meet the wiki criteria for notability then the article will be allowed to remain and they can be included in the Multiple Births article. As it stands their claim, as with all the others on the talk page, do not meet the criteria for notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SMS Talk 04:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1910. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I have removed your rollback rights as you are quite clearly using rollback in a content dispute at 1911. To regain rollback you will need to convince another admin that you fully understand the constraints on the use of the tool and will not use it in an inappropriate manner again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gwyneth Powell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Waterfalls of New Zealand

Your comments added to Talk page of new list List of waterfalls of New Zealand Hugo999 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Date format of radio years

I am opposed to your changing back the style of dates for 2 reasons. 1: the "American" method, to which I see you are opposed, is more natural in that the events happen by month THEN the day and that leads to a natural descending order of time. The so-called "international" style would be like listing time by days, then minutes THEN hours. 2: I had put in colons instead of the space dash space style because that is the use of the colon.Stereorock (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I find the use of the term "minor" in regards to U.S. broadcasting to be curious as in some of the years the only entries were U.S. broadcasting events and in many years that I found a good portion (a good deal the majority) were U.S. events. Also, the pages for years lists the style in the U.S. format. What I therefore propose is to list events by month as in year pages themselves, then the dates and the events. So for example, on the 1922 page, June would have its own subheader and next to June 5 would be WEAN begins broadcasting. Preferably in bullet points. I'll have to continue about colons and dashes later.Stereorock (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hatsue Ono

Finally got a chance to take care of your request. Sorry about the wait! Canadian Paul 16:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

THanks Paul! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Shawn and 2011

Apparently, it now allows him to post when drunk. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there will ever be a WP:RS to verify the claim to be "awesome"! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oldest verified people by nation

Do you know any person who could answer who is oldest verified people from Andorra, Monaco, Malta, Cyprus, San Marino and Vatican? 62.72.230.103 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

According to italian wikipedia, it:Pasquale Gatti born in 6. january 1905 is currently oldest living (and possibly verified) people from San Marino at the age of 108. Also it:Alceste Ferri (4. july 1905 - 17. august 2010) died in 105 years and 44 days old. Could you add them to List of oldest people by nation + Gatti in living people list? 62.72.230.103 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in adding anything to these lists as there does not seem any interest from the majority of the editors involved in applying a sufficiently encyclopedic criteria for inclusion. I suggest you contact one of the regular editors of those articles. Bear in mind that at the least there should be a citation (not from another wiki) that the person is the oldest ever or oldest living person in the country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Misawo or Misao

Is the supercentenarian's name Misawo Okawa or Misawo Okawa. Ive seen both floating around wikipeia, and i just wanted to know. thanks -Mjjd226 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Mjjd226

Introduced ambiguity. 4kg or 3kg?

Hammer Throw weight for U18 Girl was changed from 4kg to 3kg this year so by your removing the 4kg from the table there is now ambiguity in some of the results/records. Is the result for 4kg or 3kg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.95.86 (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right! No doubt one of many millions of such cases caused by a completely pointless decision by the IAAF! I am actually involved in the discussions for how Athletics New Zealand will be dealing with this issue. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

3kg or 4kg

Hi. Thanks for making the changes. Could you also make the same change to the Pacific School Games and Australian Youth Olympic Festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.95.86 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you.122.59.95.86 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

List of longest lived state leaders

I would enjoy your input at Talk:List of longest lived state leaders#Eight possible additions. Star Garnet (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation technical problem

Hi. I tried to add a citation to Julia Ratcliffe's Commonwealth best performances and made a mess of it. Are you able to fix it? The webpages with the information are http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/throws/hammer-throw/outdoor/women/junior/ and http://www.iaaf.org/records/toplists/throws/hammer-throw/outdoor/women/youth/ 122.59.95.86 (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The links you tried to add do not give a citation for the records claimed. The citation MUST identify that the performances are recognised as Commonwealth Youth/Junior records. I have found no such records. Using a list which is for another purpose to claim a "record" is original research and is not permitted. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maria Redaelli

Hello, I created page that you edit with a tag...I don't undestand what you means because to create page for section longevity milestones I have look at other pages like those about Dina Manfredini, Besse Cooper, Elsie Thompson!If I made a mistakes, I'm sorry. Thanks for explanation --Dakota86x (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They all should be tagged for the same reason: The so-called milestones are trivia. The vast majority are never mentioned in the media and are therefore unimportant (except to longevity fans). Any that are mentioned should be included in the text. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Longevity "milestones"

Dear Derbycounty, unfortunately I was only inferring a consensus. Having edited many articles on supercentenarians, I have found over the past few years that these so called milestones are silly and confusing! If we stuck to multiples of 10 maybe!

But I'm of the opinion in the List of the verified oldest people 100th and 50th, are fairly large milestones, and then possibly 30th and 20th obviously 10th and thereafter I'm not too concerned, maybe then only the final place on death of the person should be included? Please let me know what you think. As an amateur on here I would appreciate some advice from someone clearly more informed than I am. MattSucci (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear DerbyCounty,

I totally agree with you that it would be nice to read a well written article for a change, without having to navigate through all these trivial milestones.

I also agree it's probably not worth the effort raising it at WP:TRIVIA If you do decide to raise this matter however, please keep me informed.

Yours sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible oldest Lithuanian ever + Slovakian

If Emilija Krištopaitiene age will be verified or listed as pending, does that mean that she is the oldest Lithuanian ever, older than Ella Ille Rentel?

AND you recently removed Anna Balasova because there was only mentioned that she was currently oldest Slovakian when she died according to the source. BUT Eleonóra Dvoranová IS still alive according to the project page and is older than Balasova so isn't she currently living oldest Slovakian and has her age been verified? 62.72.230.103 (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maggie Calloway

Hello, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Calloway. If you still think it's non-notable, you may want to take it to AfD again. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matamata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Misao Okawa!

Dear DerbyCounty, please have a look at her talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misao_Okawa MattSucci (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Derbycounty, do you think it's too early to delete the milestones, or should I maybe wait for a few more opinions? MattSucci (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, so far there are 3 in favour of removing all and only 1 for retaining some. I would normally allow a week for for sufficient time to get consensus but I think in this case unless there are any more in favour of keeping any entries in the next day it would be safe to remove them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMNZS Resolution (A14), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyttelton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing War!

I guessed it was going to happen with users like that Futurist110, Optimist117 and Mjjd226.How does one go about protecting an already protected page from such unnecessary, unhelpful and against consensus editing? Sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User CanadianPaul has added an important paragraph to my talk page, take a look.MattSucci (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the right way to mark the Wallace Centenary?

Hi there DCinNZ (if that's ok),

I bow to your wisdom about anniversary articles.

However, it is the one-and-only Wallace centenary this November, and I think we should find a way to mark it. I had supposed the article was a way to make it known to the powers that be. Do you happen to know the proper route, e.g. to have a notice on the front page in November?

Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

James McCoubrey

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 202.213.145.17 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Placing a false vandalism notice on a user's talk page is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't expect me to be either impressed. or concerned. ANd by the way, you "forgot" to sign in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with a link to a citation

The List of living supercentenarians contains an entry for Vi Robbins. As required for the article there must be a citation indicating that she was reported to be alive within the last year. At present the only source which confirms this produces the citation http://newslocal.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx. THis seems to be a generic link which does not take the reader to the article (which can be found by a search for "Vi Robbins Little Nan", the actual title of the required article being "Little Nan still loves to help out others". Does anyone know how to link to the required source, or is this not possible with an .aspx site? If not does this excluide the citation from being a valid link? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The trick was taking the URL Google linked to and extracting the parameters for the .aspx site. Huon (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, easy when you know how! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Paget

I'm not sure why you delete the standard or level of competition in the Results section of this page. For anyone trying to understand the significance – or lack of – a rider's placing, it is essential this is done in the context of the degree of difficulty of the competition. You many not be aware that at the same competition there can frequently be many different classes, each with a different level of difficulty or for horses and riders with different levels of experience and qualifications (each is graded separately). By removing any reference to this (e.g., CCI****) you significantly increase the vagueness of the result and thus devalue the page.

I'm perfectly aware of the different standards of competition. I see no value in adding every competition a rider has been, only the results from significant events should be shown. Significant events would normally be those which are important enough to have their own wiki article. The reader can therefore follow the link to the article for that event. Adding the class of each event will more likely confuse the average reader than help them. Of course WP:EQUINE may have different standards of what is important, as project guidelines often diverge from normal wiki practice. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it would appear from your reply that your understanding of the sport of eventing is perhaps less than ideal: I am not suggesting that the page lists "every competition a rider has been"; what I did say was that at "the same competition there can frequently be many different classes". Failure to identify the class is a crucial omission of essential contextual information. In addition, specifying the month of significant achievements is also relevant, as this is an important indicator of the development of the relationship between horse and rider. You may subscribe to the view that adding such information "will more likely confuse the average reader than help them", I don't. However, all that needs to be said here is that my first attempt at becoming a contributor to Wikipedia has been somewhat of eye-opener. I had thought it was a place where knowledgeable and credible contributors could share their expertise. Given that I am one half of the partnership that brought Paget back to his native New Zealand in 2007 and have since funded his top horses and New Zealand training facilities, I reasonably considered that I might qualify as a suitable contributor. It seems I was mistaken. As you clearly believe you are more knowledgable about the sport that I am, I have decided to cease contributing to Wikipedia with immediate effect. Life is too short and there are far too many remaining objectives for New Zealand eventing for me to want to waste any more time here. Feel free to simplify and dumb-down the page on Jonathan Paget so that it is less informative and thus less valuable than it otherwise could be, as I for one will not be visiting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Hall 2012 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sadayoshi Tanabe

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -58.70.6.44 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs who add false warnings to talk pages will not last long on wikipedia. The same goes for users with logins who ""forget" to log in.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie Purdy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of years in New Zealand for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in New Zealand until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

PS - I've nothing against having something for navigation, but a navbox would surely make more sense than this. Grutness...wha? 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of oldest living people by nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive box does not display links to all archives

The archive box for Talk:2013 shows only one archive but the auto archiving is now up to Archive/5. IIRC the archive bot was copied from Talk:2012 which displays all the archive correctly. Nothing I have tried displays more than one archive (including different archive templates). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue was that Archive 2 through 4 didn't exist; you had set the archiving bot's counter to 5. I have changed that and moved the bot's archive to Talk:2013/Archive 2. Huon (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, how embarrassing! I should have made a more thorough check...oh well. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please do not edit war, and please do not delete material that directly supports part of the sentence that the ref relates to. I've asked you this before; please take it as my final request/warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrote to me "Don't try and use 3RR to threaten me when it is you who are clearly in the wrong." But if you violate 3RR, before I ask to have you blocked it is appropriate for me to warn you. That is why I have warned you twice, once being the above. If you are suggesting that I should in the future ask to have you blocked for 3RR violations without the customary prior warnings, please state as much and I will be happy to seek to oblige if the rules allow for it.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Susannah Mushatt Jones

Your right about the redundant link! Thanks and Cheers.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otaki, New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last surviving 1800s-born people

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --60.56.166.14 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You're pathetic! Why do you even bother? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Last surviving 1800s-born people

This looks like it is more trivia fanfluff. I suspect it violates various policies/guidelines such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SAL. I wonder if there are sufficient grounds for Afd? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Having read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SAL I'm not too sure which codes it breaks, however it is certainly an unnecessary article, everything here is in oldest people, add to that the fact that it was created by that futurist 110 guy. I'm afraid I'm too much of a layman in the codes of Wikipedia to be able to give you a consructive answer. Sincerely, MattSucci (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that the article has little worth as it is! However Instead of the 1800s (Not particularly significant) it should/could have been about the remaining living people from the 19th century (much more significant)! Whatever the outcome, as I said earlier the article contains nothing that isn't already contained within other more refined articles, and has, in my opinion no business being on Wikipedia! MattSucci (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly believe it has meaning and is a worthy article. Everything to you guys is "fanfluff", just because you guys have no interest in this matter, dosen't mean the people who are should suffer, because you want to remove articles.

P.S. I am becoming less and less impressed with wikipedia, since you guys would love to remove anything that brings a little personality and extra knowledge to the site. Stop messing with stuff that people care about. Mjjd226 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I am not impressed with editors who continue to ignore wiki policies and guidelines despite these being pointed out repeatedly to them. Some seem to have extreme difficulty in discerning between an encyclopedia and a fansite/blog/messageboard. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok then tell me which policy's this page is going against? Mjjd226 (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

They're listed above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very neccesary! Mjjd226 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Luckily it's not you who decides, but consensus, otherwise Wikipedia would be full of poorly written, badly maintained and unnecessary articles! MattSucci (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I completely forgot to take a look at this article, sorry about that. Seems like my vote wouldn't have made a difference in the end, at least. Canadian Paul 21:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, common sense prevailed in any case! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glendene, New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Learning difficulties (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Derby, you've made some great contributions in the longevity area, so please don't jeopardize them through edit warring. As I have suggested before, having inappropriate material on Wikipedia for a few days is preferable to getting yourself blocked over a silly edit war. I have blocked User:Joefromrandb for his violation of WP:3RR and will not hesitate to do the same to you if you violate the same policy. Please continue the discussion on the talk page or take it to another forum if necessary. There's no sense in getting blocked over the phrasing of one word. Canadian Paul 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry. I've requested clarification on this at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Baby boy in line of succession to UK

Why is the baby's birth not considered notable? I don't get your thinking on this. I believe it's more than just notable, it's news all over the world, just as William and Harry's births were. Please explain your rationale. Katydidit (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As per the guidelines at WP:RY entries in the events section must have some international impact to be included. The birth is no more than news outside the UK. The boy will be entered in the Births section once his article meets the WP:RY criteria. If you wish to gain consensus for inclusion this should be discussed at Talk:2013. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Your reversion of my manual archiving

In reference to your reversion of my manual archiving at Talk:Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. I have manually archived MANY, MANY articles during my tenure at Wikipedia. It does NOT screw up the archiving bot and in fact, automatic archiving has not even been set up at that page, nor should it be, until the page moves to its final location. Please do not revert me again, manual archiving is perfectly ok, I have done it often. Safiel (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been set up, I will disable it until page moves to final name. Safiel (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The bot has been commented out and I left a not not to reenable it until the article has been moved to its final name. Until then, it is perfectly fine to manually prune threads. Safiel (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

cite tags

Restoring cite tags by removing the refs that replaced them borders on trolling, just dont do it, there was one of 2 ways to go in these cases, ie remove the info or ref it, restoring the cite tag is not the work of a good faith editor. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. The cite tags are placed there explicitly because the cite is inappropriate. This has been explained to you already. I consider your continual defiance of this vandalism and will take appropriate action if you continue. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You have never explained anything to me, the vandalism accusation indicvates you arer trolliung as my edits were obvioulsy in good faith. What is your prob;lem exactly? Do you think you alone own these articles? And who pray are you for me to be defying? Please do take action, whatever that may mean. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see [[1]]. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

You were looking for this? The Banner talk 00:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Only for about 6 years! :) Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

AFDs

Hi mate! Good work on those AFDs - you picked up on all of that very quickly. The guy in question has a history of block-evading and sock-puppetry all centred around trying to get particular oldest-living claimants deleted from WP. It's a strange obsession. Anyway, the IP, IP use, lack of signatures, writing style, lack of templates, heading and title choices and article focus would each be a give-away on their own. He's decided to wave all 7 flags today. Straight to SPI. I didn't know whether you wanted your original note on each of those AFDs so I added it to a couple but it seems you removed them - sorry if that's not what you were after. Anyway, mate, have a good one! Cheers, Stalwart111 06:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You too! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Years

You have reverted a couple of my additions to years stating that they were "Not internationally notable as required for inclusion". Could you point to the notability criteria?--obi2canibetalk contr 19:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:YEARS, year articles are for

any important events that occurred

("important" is emphasised in the original). This applies to births and deaths as well. The associated sub-articles are for entries which are not of international importance. Unlike [{WP:RY]] which has a set minimum criteria (9 non-English wiki articles) for international importance of deceased persons, there is nothing specified in WP:YEARS but it would seem obvious that someone with no wiki article in another language is not internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DerbyCountyinNZ. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.
Message added 13:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

obi2canibetalk contr 13:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games 2014 - Host city location

Hello,

I have given my rationale for the inclusion of "United Kingdom" for the location infobox in the article (which I also believe should be applied to the 1970 and 1986 for consistency). I would appreciate your thoughts on this. 95.150.72.234 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Saro Dursun

Hello! Would it be OK if Saro Dursun is listed at List of European supercentenarians#Living European supercentenarians as unverified? That list does not require a report of the person being alive within the last two years, so I believe the 2009 sources are sufficient enough for inclusion there, and the official Swedish population registers also have her registered as born on 1 June 1899. Or is her reported birth date too unlikely for inclusion? Heymid (contribs) 10:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The list of European supercentenarians is not an article I have had anything to do with. I suspect that if you add Saro Dursun one of the regular editors will remove her. It is surprising (or perhaps not considering those that regularly edit it) that there is no requirement that the living entries have recent reports of being alive as there should be to be consistent with similar articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TSS Earnslaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queenstown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Reversal

Dear DerbyCounty, you reverted the edit that I had previously reverted by user Mjjd226! Just to let you know, I simply reverted his edit because he has a history of disruptive editing and had not provided an explanation for his edit. As for the content that was removed I am pretty confident that if you removed it, then it shouldn't be there. Yours faithfully MattSucci (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked to see if I could find anything on GRG that indicated Beard was still disputed but found nothing (which doesn't mean it's not there somewhere, GRG's site is awful for finding stuff!). It wouldn't surprise me if there is still some dispute and there's been an oversight by GRG in not mentioning it. I'd be happier if they actually said specifically that there is no longer any dispute but in the meantime we have to go with the source. And yes, it would be easier to sort these things out if editors provided a proper edit summary, especially the longevity fans who have a habit of failing to do so. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Oldest People

[2]Your information is incorrect.

  • Hannah Smith Age is turned 101 years old.
  • Marie Olsen is a woman rather than a man.
  • Mistake too many.--223.134.207.91 (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
All minor, easily fixed...so why didn't you bother? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • × (0 years, 48 days) Marie Olsen F 109 1 May 1850 – 24 November 1959↓
  • ○ (48 days) Marie Olsen F 109 1 May 1850 – 24 November 1959
  • × (801 days) John Mosely Turner M 109 – 111 15 June 1856 – 21 March 1968↓
  • ○ (2 years, 71 days) John Mosely Turner M 109 – 111 15 June 1856 – 21 March 1968
Please fix soon.--223.134.207.91 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of multiple births may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * The Letts sextuplets (born December 15, 1969 in [London, England) were born to Rosemary Ann and Arthur John Letts two months prematurely at [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Table at oldest living by nation

Hi, thanks for fixing the table on the oldest living people by nation page. I tried a few times to correct whatever I did and gave up. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! :) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Misao Okawa

Please read the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.--218.110.38.107 (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And it doesn't need to be stated that the sky is an infinite number of shades of blue, that the sky is sometimes not blue or that the sky was particularly blue over an unnamed piece of unoccupied desert on one day last summer. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1906

Buck Ewing is a significant individual in that he is a member of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. Yes, he is from the United States, but the U.S. is part of the international community and therefore he, I believe, would qualify to be listed among the deaths for the year 1906. There are thousands of Americans listed on the death pages of all the years, including many hall of famers, I fail to see why you are having a problem with this one. I would respectfully request that you allow his inclusion on that page to stand.Twinsdude (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have already asked you, 'twice, to justify his inclusion on the talk page but you have failed to do so. This is how the wiki process works when there is a dispute such as this. As you have failed to follow this process I will revert again. If you revert I will take this to WP:ANI. Your arguments are perfectly valid to include him in 1906 in the United States and 1906 in sports but nothing you have contributed suggests that he is sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Twinsdude misunderstood you and thought ANI would resolve the issue and has brought this up here. I agree with you but really, please, that's an edit war and I don't think I want to count the reversions. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought that having been around since 2009 the user would have understood that the discussion was meant to take place on the article's talk page, especially after I started it there myself...but apparently not. As for establishing a criteria for inclusion in Year, I tried to not long ago, but the discussion was not particularly helpful. I may try again one day...Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

List of people with the longest marriages

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_with_the_longest_marriages&diff=576037000&oldid=575837957 => any proof actually though? 62.235.175.45 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The article only requires that they have been reported alive within the last year, and there is a citation from April 2013. So they are assumed alive and stay on the list until April 2014, unless there is a report that one has died. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be soon confirmed though. 62.235.175.45 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I Didn't Know

Please explain what I did wrong apart from the third sentence. There was no need to delete everything I typed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenSaily (talk • contribs) 06:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are dying - please don't archive too much

Hi,

I won't revert (it's not my way), but I think it's a terrible policy to create archives with just two threads. No one reads archives. I really believe that removing people's threads from talk pages (and filling the first two screens with boxes) is partly responsible for editors leaving. It ends communication and kills the old culture of leaving questions, waiting for it to be seen by the person who happens to know that obscure fact, and improving the article on a more than superficial level.

The most important questions are the ones that take years to find a reply. If a question gets a quick reply, it's often because the editor could have googled it herself in the first place.

I personally don't see why even after 5 years there's any reason to stuff an unanswered question in an archive. Gronky (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If a discussion isn't answered relatively promptly it's more than likely not important. And there is an awful lot of irrelevant discussion on talk pages, particularly longevity articles. Some people seem unable to differentiate between a talk page (whose purpose is explained at the top of every talk page) and a messageboard. If there's nothing in a talk age it probably means the article is in good shape! In the case of Talk:List of the verified oldest people, there is nothing in the archives that is ever likely to be raised again, and even if it were the previous discussion is so old it would be appropriate to start the discussion again as most of the earlier contributors are no longer involved with the article. I see no reason to clog up the page with ancient discussions just on the off chance they might be useful years later. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I feel sorry for the editors of longevity article if the state of Talk pages is really that bad. I know that quality varies between topics. But even still, I'd have faith in editors to improve their use of Talk pages with time. It can take years for an editing culture to evolve - creating Wikipedia isn't something we learn in school. It's also not really fair for one editor to decide that everyone else's comments are worthless. I haven't checked the archives of that page, maybe that page is a particular magnet for problems, but at least keep it in mind for other pages. Gronky (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Valentino Stella

Hi, I see that you reverted my edit over at List of the verified oldest men. I just wanted to point out that a year is defined as 365 days. Therefore, simple logic would dictate that Valentino Stella was 111 years old at the time of his death, even though he was born on January 2, 1886 and died on January 1, 1997. If he had died on January 2, 1998, he would have been considered 112 years old, and that is because 1997 was not a leap year. However, in reality, he would actually be 111 years and 365 days old (according to your logic). SuperHero2111 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

NO, a year is not "defined as 365 days". Years can be 365 days or 366 days. Someone who dies the day before their birthday is either X years and 365 days or X years and 366 days. You can amend Stella to 111 years and 366 days (which would be technically correct), but not only would you have to do the same for every case where they had a leap day in the last year of their life, it would also be OR as wiki is obliged to follow the source, and, as far as I know, the GRG does not list people with age at 366 days. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mary Ann Rhodes

Does the above article meet the criteria for Speedy Deletion?Or even PROD? A previous article under this name was deleted. The current article merely redirects to a list with no biographical content on the subject. This article/redirect appears to be not only optimistic in terms of future relevance but I would have thought violates some wiki guidelines (but I can't find anything specific/appropriate). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Derby, I'm not quite sure what your question is. If it is whether the current redirect should be deleted, the answer is generally not. Redirect are usally kept as long as they are useful. In this case, the redirect points to all information we have on this person after the stand-alone article was deleted, and is therefore useful. If you're wondering if a new actual article would be viable, than the answer is probably not. If it were written anew, it wouldn't meet the speedy deletion criterion for reposts of deleted content. Any article (but not redirect) is in theory eliable for PROD, as long as prod hasn't been removed from the page in the past, so that would always be a possibility. In the end, if a hypothetical new article would be up for deletion, and the sourcing situation would be the same, I would assume it would have the same outcome again. I hope that answers your question, if not, feel free to follow up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the redirect should be deleted. The redirect doesn't point to anything that would not be available in any list in which the link would be found! SHe appears in 4 other lists with exactly the same information. I can't see that a redirect serves any useful purpose at all (if it had it would have surely been created at the time of the original deletion). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The only reason why I created it is because I wanted to add her to a category. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The user above has created at least two more redirect pages purely to add the "male/female supercentenarian" category. Do note that like Mary Ann Rhodes, Giovanni Frau redirects nowhere useful. There is no section for that person in the Italian SC's page. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no point in doing this. Categories are for actual articles, not redirects. I'm surprised there's not a bot that automatically removes categories from redirects. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. What if there is someone we want to include in a category, but he/she doesn't have their own article? SuperHero2111 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure these categories violate Wikipedia:Cat/gender#Gender but I'll check before I nominate them for deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, to come back to your original question, speedy deletion or PROD don't apply here; PROD is for articles only, not redirects, and the redirect doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. If you want to start a discussion on what we should ultimately do with the redirect, the correct venue is WP:Redirects for discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That Reference is Allowed

You said in your edit to Paengaroa that Blogs are not reliable sources. That is clearly stereotyping. I put two websites saying the same thing, but you only deleted the Blog. The blog's information came from a reliable source. But you are saying Blogs are not reliable. You should at least see the Blog's references before laying such accusations.

Thanks, Naveen — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenSaily (talk • contribs) 11:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are usually considered to not be reliable sources (read WP:BLOGS). There is no point adding a reference from a blog when there is already a more reliable source for the same information. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


But you say that ALL blogs are not reliable, you should first see what kind of blog it is. In this case a blog specifically about stating facts about Paengaroa. Why would they give false info abouy a town/city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenSaily (talk • contribs) 22:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read WP:RS? It says about personal blogs: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Paengaroa is obviously not a person so in regard to non-persons it says "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources". NOte that it says "largely not acceptable". In regard to newsblogs it says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution". The blog you added is not a newsblog and therefore com under the category of "largely not acceptable". In this case the blog appears to be reliable, but it is any case redundant as the other citation contains the same information. The preferred source for population information is Statistics NZ, and this should be used as soon as it the 2013 census is online. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1901 in aviation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com Foreword: Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft]</ref> although some authorities, including the [[Snithsonian Institute, disagree. It precedes the Wright Brothers' first assisted-takeoff flight by

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Top of year template and Talk:2013

Thanks for the heads up about the space before the comma. I gave an explanation for everyone reading it, that the space is there on purpose, if I forget - which I had, I've been busy on lots of other things - that I need to add the dominical letter code to the first paragraph template. By leaving the space before the comma, either I'd see it at some time and remember I need to come back and fix it, or someone would notice and say something. I also included my comments from Talk 2012, which I thought I included in Talk 2013. So, by someone noticing it reminds me to come back and fix the template to put the dominical letter in. :) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of aviation and notability.

Hi, I have started two separate discussions on aspects of why you reverted me: on the notability guidelines for the timeline at Talk:Timeline of aviation#Notability, and on the Phillips 1904 multiplane in particular at Talk:1904 in aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, didn't read that properly, didn't realise there were 2 discussions and missed the 1904 in aviation one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maria Fedela Montemurro

Hi, why did you revert my edit? Her case is well verified.--Pascar (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Well verified" by who? If you have a Reliable Source, which MUST state that she was the oldest person born in 1825, feel free to add it back in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Verified by a GRG Correspondent. Ok, before adding her case, let's wait for an updating of the page http://www.grg.org/Adams/OldestCentYear.HTM.--Pascar (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be ideal, unfortunately the GRG are not very good at updating some of their lists, that one is 6 years out of date! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, "as of September 25, 2007"... Ok, I reported the source, I hope it is ok now :) --Pascar (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Does that source actually say she is the oldest person born in 1825? If it does not then it is not an appropriate source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Worlds_Oldest_People/conversations/topics/21046 Aren't you in this group? --Pascar (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No. And it does not count as a reliable source. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

But I cannot report her birth and death acts here. What should we do in this case? --Pascar (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is to contact GRG and ask them to update the list on their website. Actually they need to update ALL their lists! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

veterans

Why the hell did you reversed my revision? Check the link first!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.19.11 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the edit summary the reason is discussed on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Eight-Year-Old Adopted Quads In Virginia Excel In Academics And Athletics." Meredith Jackson also runs Cross Country with a 42 minute 5k.(July 30, 2001). Jet. Retrieved October 14, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DerbyCountyinNZ/Archive_2&oldid=1085941290"