User talk:SiameseTurtle - Knowledge (XXG)

690:

set a record in a state with a low record threshold. Listing by birth treats everyone equally and removes any possibility of manipulation. Further, the source of validation is usually tied to birthplace. As to the comment that Linnie Jones is the "immigrant record" for Colorado, stop a minute and consider what the term "immigrant" means: does it include only international migration, or is internal immigration included? It would not be that difficult to list, then, Linnie Jones as the immigrant recordholder for Colorado. Taking this to the ultimate conclusion, one could create a "table of records by place of death or current residence" (but many of those would be overlapping, and in addition, I don't think as much weight should be given to immigrant records because, as Louis Epstein has also argued, someone could live somewhere for just a few years, and not be the person who lived in the state the longest. The easiest/cleanest way to solve this problem AND avoid overlap (as the silly world's oldest person/world's oldest woman list on the oldest people article) is to have a main table of records by place of birth, and a secondary table of "immigrant records" (by place of death or residence, but only in cases where that record would exceed the common record). Thus Walter Breuning could be the "immigrant recordholder" for Montana.Ryoung122 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Comment Part II. Listing by other means also runs the risk of an "original research" charge, as there is no source online that lists by place of death or residence.Ryoung122 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Comment Part III. There is one more rationale for keeping the system as it is now...consider this: Walter Breuning was born in Minnesota, so could potentially, one day, be the Minnesota state recordholder (by birth). Likewise, Gertrude Baines, born in Georgia, is nearing the Georgia state record, even though she would be the California state recordholder if listed by place of residence (having one person holding more than one state record defeats the purpose of this table, which is to break up the U.S. data in European-state-sized parts for better comparison values). Mary Ray, born in Canada, could NEVER be a recordholder by birth for any state. Thus, there is a logical reason to have an "immigrant records" footnote for international, but not national, migration.Ryoung122 09:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "

1692:...Validation of Exceptional Longevity. Katherine Plunket: A Well Documented Super-Centenarian in 1930. by A.R. Thatcher ... www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/08.htm - Cached Semi-supercentenarians and seasonal distribution of birth datesMonth of birth and survival to age 105+: evidence from the age validation study of German semi-supercentenarians by. Doblhammer G, Scholz R, Maier H. ... www.supercentenarian.com/semi-supercentenarians.html - Cached Characteristics of 32 Supercentenarians: DiscussionRegarding age validation, only two of the purported supercentenarians in the sample were found not to have adequate substantiating evidence of their ages. ... www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228_4 Supercentenarians: slower ageing individuals or senile elderly?*1 ...by JM Robine - 2001 - Cited by 42 - Related articles A.R. Thatcher, Katherine Plunket: a well documented supercentenarian in 1930. In: B. Jeune and J.W. Vaupel, Editors, Validation of Exceptional ... linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0531556500002503 Life at the Extreme Limit: Phenotypic Characteristics of ...Of these 15, 12 (3 men and 9 women) met our age validation criteria and were accepted as supercentenarians. Phenotypic variables studied include medical and ... biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/11/1201 630:

Belgian" who turned out to have died in 1954? Simply having a list alone with no biography is the alternate risk. Thus, a balanced, pluralistic approach: one that incorporates the dual concerns of statistics and human interest/oral history, is needed. I could do this myself but it would be COI. Therefore, I leave it to others, but I feel strongly there needs to be a better approach than simply "As of Oct 2008, Person X ranks in the top 40 oldest people ever." This is missing the point...the point of a lot of cases is to show how rare the age is, but also how regular the deaths are and how clean the data fit together when only validated cases are accepted. We can see this in the U.S. data...the oldest living American has been 113 or older since 1986, but often just 113. The cohort-extinction range is a lot tighter than would be expected, unless there might be a "plastic-maximum" life span...in other words, after a certain point it becomes increasingly unlikely that there will be anyone left alive. If people could see clean demographic data, they wouldn't be making diatribes claiming that living to ages 125 or 130 is reasonable, those people are real, etc. Check out, for example, the latest rant on the

1524:

are many ways in which his claims about his birthdate could be false, and the amount of time he claims his career spanned could still be true; likewise, the amount of time he claims to have spent working could be false and his claimed birthdate could still be true. Obviously, then, whether or not the length of his career is as long as he claims does not directly rest upon whether his birthdate is when he claims, which is what the Wiki article states (stated, I hope, as long as another person doesn't erroneously edit it back to the completely absurd claim it had before I fixed the incredibly obvious error). And of course that's not even the worse of it, considering whether he has had the longest career of any person is a question even further removed. I hope I'm not being too esoteric here, this is really fairly obvious and just plain simple stuff.

604:

not realize that even that age is a survivor from a base at 110: Australia probably has 5 living supercentenarians. Just because we don't know all of them right now, doesn't mean they aren't there. The GRG living list was never intended to be demographically valid--it's affected by news reporting that favors who is in first place. For example, some news reports on Beatrice Riley claim that Australia's second-oldest person was born Dec. 1896, but right now the case is anonymous, so we don't have that person on the GRG list. But if we go by death data from the past, especially large sets like the U.S., UK, or France, we can see that if the oldest person in a nation is 112, there's likely to be 2 people aged 111, and 4 aged 110.

2247:. Where her birthplace is now is irrelevant. On the list of European supercentenarians, Kowalski's birthplace is given as Austria-Hungary, but it is noted that his birthplace is now in the Ukraine. That does not mean he was born in the Ukraine however. On Knowledge (XXG) we have to be historically accurate. Kowalski actively fought against the Ukrainians in the war, so it's very wrong to incorrectly list him as born in Ukraine. Events surrounding the First World War changed many country boundaries and we need to keep that in mind. Kowalski has never lived in Ukraine and he is an ethnic Pole. 2736:. The guidance notes that "such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article". It gives an example "For instance, the flag of Tampa, Florida, is appropriately used on the Tampa article. However, the Tampa flag should generally not be used on articles about residents of Tampa: it would not be informative, and it would be unnecessarily visually distracting" ... and residence is what we are discussing here. You completely ignored this point. 1659:

verification will be small (less than 10%)" - you can't infer the likelihood of specific cases, and the figure is plucked out of the air. We need to be impartial on Knowledge (XXG). There's simily far too much original research in the intro. I suggested two weeks ago that we could highlight cases where there hasn't been a supercentenarian before in that country - something which Canada Jack has brought up again. However, I disagree with a third list. We need the lists to be cohesive. It would make it more difficult to see the bigger picture.

3587: 2663:: It is clear from the guidelines that this applies to biographical articles only, and more specifically to just the introduction and infobox. Therefore this section does not apply to such articles as lists. However if you choose to invent your own version of this rule, then that is your choice alone. However I quote the guideline itself: "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox", which clearly does not apply here. 2291: 1340: 1711:

general and don't address the specific issues in the section introduction. Summary and review is allowed, but synthesis of points of view and data are not. I just want the section to be honest and reasoned. At the moment, it doesn't seem to take a neutral stance. There are a couple of points whih I think could stay, but overall the section appears to be geared towards one point of view without any backing by evidence.

2669:: Sub-national flags are only used in national articles. They do convey extra information to the reader. For example, readers may be interested to know which British supercentenarians died in Scotland. The flags are not visually distracting, since they are contained within a list. Overuse of flags/images refers to disorganised images scattered throughout the article, not when they are organised in a list. See 1908: 4701: 4645: 4594: 4543: 4492: 4441: 4390: 4339: 4288: 4226: 3919: 4150: 3880: 3845: 2221: 3272: 1567: 1213: 860: 2790:

country/state/whatever. I always will support keeping flags. There are flags in tons of other longevity articles, basically in every one. There is no point in "bullying" 4 of the many articles with flags. There are tons of other lists on Knowledge (XXG) that have flags. It is a waste of time removing them when they will be added back in the future. Trust me, they

4028: 3367: 740: 2724:. The guidance explains in detail how the flags convey a message of nationality which may not reflect the nationality of the subject. Readers may indeed be interested to know that a person died in Scotland, but that's irrelevant: that fact can be conveyed without the flag. The flag is at best decoration, and at worst misleading. 2114:. If the list is going to use the word 'nation' then the UK should be split. Secondly, there's no such thing as a 'country of Holland'. Holland is a region of the Netherlands and not a country in its own right. 'Country' is far less ambiguous than 'Nation'. It's also very easy to stick to internationally recognised countries. 3312:. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - 4098:: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I am doing as suggested by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. 1691:

SupercentenariansPart I General: On the age validation of supercentenarians.- The International Database Longevity: Structure and contents.- Part II Country reports: ... www.springer.com/sociology/population.../978-3-642-11519-6 - Cached Validation of Exceptional Longevity - Katherine Plunket: A Well

1642:

Well, you managed to finally give the HIE the old heave-ho. But having a three-list system was far more practical, in reality. We all know that some cases, such as Ellen Watson, are "just over 110" cases that haven't been added to the GRG list yet, but in all likelihood will...while others, such as a

603:

An alternate method is a "population pyramid". That is, we can take the U.S. data and say that 570 made it to 110, of which X made it to 111, Y made it to 112, etc. The point is to provide a balance...too often we see in the media the oldest person at 112 (Beatrice Riley, oldest Australian) but we do

1749:

I would like to point out that he was born in 1994 (just a kid) and think that a more-constructive way to deal with eager, enthusiastic editors who are quite young includes a little admonishing and pro-active editing. For example, if you felt the German flag for Berta Rosenberg was "historically the

931:

deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note

557:

irst. Knowledge (XXG) says that "articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently". As Florrie Baldwin is British, I decided to change the dates

1523:

The Wiki article on Shigechiyo Izumi says: "He claimed to have began his career in 1872", if this is false, then it is false because it's the wrong date. We may be able to determine its falsity from other proxies, such as if his actual birthdate was 6 or 7 years later than he claims, however, there

836:

I'm sorry but I do not know to speak very well English. I wanted to only say that the emigrating cases are present nelleliste of the countries in which they have been moved. Task that can be in two various lists therefore I do not suggest to remove them from those Europeans. You say your opinion to

2569:. The MOS specifically cites the British example, because individuals may or may identify with the United Kingdom or its members countries; but this list applies the flags indiscriminately to place of birth and death, without any evidence as to whether this reflects the individual's identoification 1131:

Have you read the article, or only the title? It is well stated that these are only claims, and these extreme longevities are all probably false, but they exist, that's why I made the article. If it makes you happy I may change the title to "List of brazilian supercentenarian claims" or "claims of

689:

Comment. One reason I support a listing "by birth" is that a person can be born only once, but could live in more than one state at the same time (Leona Tuttle) or move at age 110 (Charlotte Benkner). In addition, listing by place of residence introduces the possibility of someone moving simply to

3823:

I know I'm not on this site hardly anymore but thank you sir for having my back with these clowns who have no life and act like this issue, which is no issue at all, is a huge burden to Wikipedians. They need to worry about people typing disrespectful/distasteful comments on articles...not worry

3148:

is applicable, because the comment was about the article and what we should include in it - and we can't prohibit the expression of opinions because we personally find them offensive. The best way to address opinions like that is to allow free speech and to answer them, in the open, not to censor

2789:

Flags make it visually easier for people to see where the person lives or where they were born. When you see the flag you automatically know the country. An article is better when it is understandable and easy for the reader to read. Similar with flags, it is easier for the individual to know the

1710:

Where's the evidence that countries with few or no verified cases are <10% likely to be validated? Can it not also be inferred that there will be a greater focus on validating people nearer the top of the list (as I tried to with Matilda Lewis and Ida Stewart)? The references you give are very

616:

In any case, the "list of living supercentenarians" lets us see that even though some persons get more coverage than others, rank-wise their age may not be all that. For example, Beatrice Riley ranks just 31 on the world list. Thus, a listing of all validated 110+ cases allows the viewer to get a

1154:

It would be better to have the age at 60 days to remove sections which are no longer relevant (such as Carlo Dozzi). To keep a section from being archived only needs a post every 2 months (and there shouldn't be too many to keep an eye on). If there's no discussion for an extended period then it

629:

might deserve a mini-bio. Knowledge (XXG) states that media coverage is the least reliable of the "reliable" sources, so to counter this there should be an attempt made to make these articles more scientific and more demographic. Conversely, statistics alone simply won't do. Remember the "oldest

599:

We have a list of Wikipedians by edit count that reaches to the top 4000 or so positions, so I don't see what's wrong with listing all validated supercentenarians by nation. The US list would be over 570, but Japan less than 120, and UK and France about 100 each. Most national lists would be far

2751:

Grace Clawson and Miriam Carpelan are listed with United States flags beside their country of death. Do you have reliable sources that they were American citizens? And if not, why are you misleading the reader by putting the flag beside them? I have taken those two as an example, but can list

1163:

The issue I have is that reports on the oldest person tend to only be released on their birthday - which can be up to a year away, so I think 2 months is too short. I've moved the Carlo Dozzi section to the archive and in an ironic twist found a report of the oldest woman in Trinidad and Tobago

1658:

Consensus gave the HIE the old heave-ho. Many of the statements that you added are what I was trying to avoid. They are arbitrary, sweeping statements. For example "Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of

2551:. The guidance notes that "such flags are rarely recognizable by the general public, detracting from any shorthand utility they might have, and are rarely closely related to the subject of the article". They do not convey extra information to the general reader, and are visually distracting. 2618:. That guidance uses the example of biographical articles, but the reason applies here too: that flags convey nationality, but the location of birth and death is not evidence of nationality. In several cases, the nationality of the person in the list is clearly misrepresented by the flag 649:

During the summer holidays, I've had plenty of free time to help but my final year at university is just beginning so I'm likely to have less time to spend editing Knowledge (XXG), among other things. Free time I do have to spend will probably be spent on helping to validate cases.

3528:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at

2746:

the guidelines, and read the whole section rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. That section of the guideline is quite clear that the flags convey a message of nationality which may be inaccurate, and that is the case with their usage in these articles. For example, at

2626:"Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all" 1865:

I am vehemently opposed to Tim198's use of tiny fonts. I would like third-party input as to what others feel about this. I don't need to be wasting my time in an edit war, but I don't feel like an article about OLD people should have very-hard-to-read (size-wise)

2969:

On balance, it may be necessary to remove sub-national flags, though I feel that discussions should be opened on the relevant pages first as there are clearly multiple users for and against. However, it seems that the use of national flags does not conflict with

4727:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

4671:

4620:

4569:

4518:

4467:

4416:

4365:

4314:

4252:

2109:

Uses such as "country boy" are irrelevant to the discussion since they have no context in the list. A nation is simply a group of people who share a similar culture, heritage etc. You'll notice that Knowledge (XXG) uses "by country" almost exclusively (see

620:

Finally, if those who wanted to delete supercentenarian articles realized that only about 10-15% of cases had individual articles (in other words, we are showing some discretion before rushing to create an article), then it would be more understandable why

3336: 4162:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3945:

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.

1993:

It's not going by any standard other than what the creators believe. They include SOME unvalidated/longevity-claim status cases, but not others. The list of 108-109-year-olds is, necessarily, original research since no one really keeps track.

933: 2687:, only the country of residence is represented by a flag and the place of birth is footnoted in the table with the town of birth (if known), the country it was in at the time of birth, and the country in which the place of birth now lies. 2091:

I disagree. "Country" can mean a lot of things, too, such as "country boy" (not from the city). We have the "United Nations" not "United Countries." "Country" can also be used to mean an informal nation, such as "the country of Holland."

2868:. I'm afraid that it is you, not me, that is cherry-picking the phrases. I'm merely quoting and paraphrasing what the guideline says. On the other hand, you are choosing to ignore specific sections of the guideline to suit your position. 1623:, it is requested that you explain if reverting an edit. Specifically, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Hope you are doing well! Thank you! 3637:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 1442:

Could you go through and add a orange or red background color to cases on this page claiming to be 110+ and not verified internationally, such as cases from Moldova and Poland? This would be a compromise solution to automatic

1738:

23:38, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2008 ‎ (Undid revision 347595133 by SiameseTurtle (talk) ur beginning to get in way. Ive contributed alot my time into this article.juststop)

4724: 3308: 2961:

This was a mistake on my past after not realising that another user had reinstated the flag prior to your removal of the flags. At the time of the discussion above though, this was not an issue. See my earlier reversions

2041:

Stanley A. Tomlin's death was registered in Q1 1969 aged 63 (which he would have been by his date of birth). The nearest birth of another Stanley A. Tomlin was in 1919, so that rules out that it could be someone else.

813:

on technical issues? For example, Eugenie Blanchard's entry is not colored green on the list of oldest French persons. Also, the flag links for Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Reunion are not showing the individual flags.

3350:

This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Knowledge (XXG) and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

4731:

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. —

4624:

4573:

4522:

4471:

4420:

4369:

4318:

4190: 4675:

4256:

3949:

3985:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2694:

since this is another example of where this footnoting is the case. Therefore there are no historically inaccurate flags used, and the table makes it quite clear that the column refers to the place of residence.

1312:

I'm not sure which are verified/unverified/debunked and let's not forget there isn't a 'GRG' for people attaining 80 years of marriage. If Guinness have retracted the Morgan case, then it can be removed anyway.

2699:

Therefore I will be reverting your edits since they do not make sense when you refer to Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. If you have any other guidelines that may apply here, then please feel free to discuss them.

4668: 3362:

Hi there! I've just had a journalist ring my office, trying to talk to you about a piece she's doing on people born in 1905, 1906 and 1907, and still alive today. Could you drop me an email at richard.symonds

893:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.

3107:, as I didn't see it as being in breach of any Knowledge (XXG) policies. I share your distaste for the opinion, but I don't think we can remove it because of that - I'll reply to it instead. Best regards -- 1688:"summary, review, or synthesis" is allowed. Further, this sort of statement is based on research that has been already published. If you want to read through all this material and add sources, be my guest. 4617: 4515: 3053:

is urged to seek experienced Knowledge (XXG) editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies and community

3942: 1329: 4566: 4249: 1742:

23:36, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2009 ‎ (Undid revision 347595095 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. dont worry about it. ur getting in the way.) (top)

4174:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2758:

is another point where you appear not to have read the guideline. It explicitly says "Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc". It does

2438: 1885:

Actually Siamese, that report was on May 11, 2009, not November 5. Read the first paragraph directly under the Date in red. But thank you for catching me on that. I had no idea she was still alive.

2605:. As above, national flags are used to indicate the country of death of Belgian supercentenarians who died outside Belgium, without evidence that this accurately reflects a change in citizenship 3704: 3691: 3573: 885:, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Knowledge (XXG) under one of the 3642: 2812:, but unless you achieve consenus for a change, the MOS stands. In the meantime, you offer no reason at all why these articles should be an exception to the guidelines, other than a form of 1086:

Regarding the "oldest person by year of birth" article: ANYONE on that page should have to be verified by an official body, even if less than 110...because there is only one record per year.

874:, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of 3008: 2545:. That guidance uses the example of biographical articles, but the reason applies here too: that flags convey nationality, but the location of birth and death is not evidence of nationality 3465: 4043: 3891: 3856: 2410: 2406: 1292:

Could you possibly separate this into verified/unverified/debunked sections? The Thomas and Sarah Morgan claim has already been shown to be false, and several others are poorly sourced.

3461: 3408: 1227: 30: 3793: 3210: 1745:

23:35, 3 March 2010 (hist | diff) List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 ‎ (Undid revision 347595136 by SiameseTurtle (talk) i dont care. your getting in the way.) (top)

3404: 3126:. Edits on talk pages are meant to improve the article, not be general comments. They are also certainly not supposed to be comments that are offensive towards living people (see 3306:

article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so,

2674: 2351: 3031:) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Knowledge (XXG) process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted); 2370:

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—

4120:. Three editors have contested your claim that the rankings are inappropriate, so I advise you to start looking for consensus instead of edit warring. BLP is not a shield. 3804:

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.

1481:

Because her birth month is not certain, it was extrapolated from her (one of many) claimed ages at death. Consequently, the case is not accepted by the GRG, only Guinness.

2935:

After five days of trying in vain to persuade you to read the guideline, I have to conclude that you are determined not to discuss this in good faith, so I will open an

1643:

claim from Nicaragua, are going nowhere fast. So perhaps the lists could be separated according to whether they come from a nation that had a validated case in the past?

4413: 155: 2087:(Move log); 21:42 . . SiameseTurtle (talk | contribs) moved Talk:List of oldest people by nation to Talk:List of oldest people by country (Nation can mean many things) 1539:

Given that the dispute over his age suggests that he may have been born in 1880 (aged 105 at death), it directly affects the claim that he started his career in 1872.

4311: 3758: 3748: 2998: 2850:. The fact can of course be conveyed without a flag. Flags, however are not simply for decoration. In a table they can be extremely useful visual aids for the reader. 2402: 2395: 1581: 3050: 2819:

Rather than making spurious allegations of "bullying", please try to discuss the many ways in which I have shown how the use of the flags on these article breaches

4362: 3104: 3097: 2673:. Lists are perhaps the best example of the use of flags, which allows for easy visual identification, which has been a point raised in other similar discussions 1937:, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at 1821: 1804: 4464: 2294: 3057:

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

2628:. In this list, 6 entries already have footnotes indicating that relevant political boundaries have changed; use of a flag in such cases misleads the reader. 2084:(Move log); 21:42 . . SiameseTurtle (talk | contribs) moved List of oldest people by nation to List of oldest people by country (Nation can mean many things) 1148: 4713: 4657: 4606: 4555: 4504: 4453: 4402: 4351: 4300: 4238: 3931: 3475: 3418: 613:

However, it does appear the mortality rate begins to increase around age 114 to .6, so there are fewer observed deaths than the above hypothetical example.

3377: 2683:: You appear to misunderstand that no nationality is listed for the supercentenarians. You may also be interested to know the on other articles, such as 979:

Should be moved to the "limbo" list. I have heard of this case before but I can't find anything at the moment. Give me some time to do a little research.

199: 3004:

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

2762:

say use the flag to misrepresent, and then add a footnote to explain the misrepresentation to which you have given extra prominence by using the flag.

2809: 1396:

Can u give me the links on Anna Marie Houlmann-Schmutz and Cristina Rosa Quilico's deaths please since u said that they have deceased. Thank you!--

1367: 1363: 2467:

Thank you for your contributions, I hope you have a happy birthday. keep up the good work. I hope you have many more wonderful birthdays to come.

1462:

What is misleading about "As was the case with most slaves, no records prove the date of Graham's birth, although her birth month is certain."? ~

607:

Using a .5 mortality rate (considered the correct rate by the leading experts), given 1000 supercentenarians at age 110, how the data should go:

3373: 2862:. The example given talks about the use of a city flag (not even a state flag) on an article about people from that city, which is not the same. 2523:

In each case your edit summary said "MOS:FLAG only states that flags should not be used in biographical articles in the introduction and infobox

3645:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge (XXG) Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 3471: 3414: 2951: 2835: 2779: 2646: 4021: 3887: 3852: 444: 67:

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

4204: 4010: 3044: 195: 3172: 577:

Just to give you a heads-up, there are two unreflected GRG changes made on October 5. I will recuse myself from making the changes myself.

378: 3449: 1505: 495: 34: 2587:, without evidence that the banner is relevant to the usage or that the individual concerned identifies with this highly-charged symbol 3603: 2930:

restricted to cities: "Subnational flags (regions, cities, etc.) should generally be used only when directly relevant to the article"

2610: 2498: 2210: 1846: 1779: 610:

Age 110: 1000 Age 111: 500 Age 112: 250 Age 113: 125 Age 114: 63 Age 115: 31 Age 116: 15 Age 117: 7 Age 118: 3 Age 119: 2 Age 120: 1

3546: 422: 173: 3392: 2912: 2748: 2592: 2556: 2514: 2490: 1602: 1112: 784: 321: 3537: 2374: 2367: 897: 886: 250: 177: 2926:. You say that "The example given talks about the use of a city flag" ... whereas the guideline is absolutely explicit that it is 2730:. You completely ignored this point which is quite specific about the inappropriateness of using the highly-charged Ulster Banner. 711:

Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name.

2684: 2537: 2506: 2304: 2179: 1358: 64: 356: 351: 300: 4200: 4006: 3028: 4183: 3530: 3468:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3411:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3381: 2308: 1817:

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

282: 119: 2380: 1953: 1772:

Hello SiameseTurtle, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

436: 287: 211: 4035: 3247:

Hi! Please don't nominate articles for deletion when they are just being created; I was still editing the article. Thanks.

1773: 1766: 3154: 3112: 2409:. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 783:

For those listed here that have their own article, can you change them to the "main article" format as exemplified in the

1350: 875: 418: 312: 304: 228: 224: 186: 4070: 3617: 817:

I do have some more information (places of death, for example) that will allow me to eventually fill in the whole table.

4717: 4661: 4610: 4559: 4508: 4457: 4406: 4355: 4304: 4242: 3997:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3935: 1957: 1923: 1577: 1223: 400: 360: 246: 207: 4195: 4002: 2388: 2355: 4652: 4636: 373: 369: 233: 190: 4499: 4483: 2808:

Nick, your comments ignore the guidelines. If you want the guidelines changed, you are welcome to make proposals at

1045:

I don't think she should be removed yet...no one has bothered to even ask a Spanish colleague if she is still alive.

3282: 1013: 2718:

No, I have not misunderstood the guidelines, and your replies make me wonder whether you have actually read them.

1930: 329: 215: 182: 3505:

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

2947: 2831: 2775: 2642: 842: 1366:, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at 937: 762: 325: 316: 113: 109: 3509:

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email

3150: 3108: 3038: 2813: 2449: 2424: 2312: 514:

Could you explain, why you include Miriam Carpelan in lists of supercentenarians? I found no reasons for that.

4171: 3801: 3785: 3779: 1533: 956: 750: 431: 427: 382: 1509: 3883: 3586: 3321: 2907:

is "irrelevant to this discussion". Yet that section specifically deprecates use of the politically-charged

2472: 2276: 2062: 2030: 1677:

Greetings, I believe the word "original research" is bandied about far too often. If you take a gander here:

499: 3792:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 1606: 1155:

would probably be better to archive it and start a new section when information becomes available. Cheers,

1116: 1108: 519: 491: 254: 220: 58: 4708: 4692: 4681: 3829: 3597: 3203: 2799: 2233: 1938: 1893: 1840: 1412: 1401: 838: 76: 42: 3998: 3848: 3675:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

3149:

them, surely? (And again, please do note that I do agree with you and I disagree with the suggestion) --

1919: 919: 867: 853: 408: 404: 295: 278: 241: 150: 4099: 3278: 3248: 3237: 3192: 3184: 3131: 2975: 2882: 2701: 2248: 2115: 2043: 1712: 1660: 1540: 1482: 1421: 1314: 1270: 1219: 1165: 995: 719: 651: 559: 3179:

to be extended to cover off-wiki canvassing through the 110 Club internet forum. Please comment there.

1922:

on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a

291: 105: 515: 3899: 3864: 3767: 3663:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

3525:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 2940: 2824: 2768: 2635: 1968: 1793: 1628: 1529: 1466: 1377: 1254: 4158: 4140: 3974: 3965: 1963:

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

1306: 754: 414: 347: 4601: 4585: 4266: 4051: 3727:'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this 3669:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

3218: 3034: 3022: 2442: 2417: 1934: 1580:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 1573: 1559: 1249:

Do you have an appropriate citation for the source of the statistical data used to make the chart?

1243: 1226:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 770: 691: 4167: 4117: 3994: 3978: 1436: 1192:

It's clear that the rest of the articles are organized by nation or continent, not two continents.

123: 3809: 3657:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

3317: 3061: 2874:. Please point me to the guideline which says that place of residence is the same as nationality. 2468: 2326: 2272: 2139: 2057: 2025: 1750:

wrong one," you could have replaced the modern German flag with the historical one you preferred.

1588: 1234: 3145: 3123: 882: 705: 698: 694:" Categories: Start-Class World's Oldest People articles | Mid-importance World's Oldest People 440: 3761:

to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --

904:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding

4677: 3825: 3708: 3593: 3491: 3434: 3176: 2795: 2405:. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 2229: 1889: 1829: 1397: 758: 757:

for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative

72: 68: 4179: 4113: 3990: 3982: 3728: 2915:. This has pointed out to you several times, yet you continue to ignore it and you have just 2533:

is quite a long guideline, and the use of flags in these lists breaches it in numerous ways.

2206:

In your terms: Why does it have Lutzko born in Ukraine "WHEN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY DOESN'T EXIST"?

1945: 365: 237: 145: 4126: 4083: 3611: 3233: 3188: 3180: 3071: 2584: 2268: 2111: 1017: 964: 945: 631: 4182:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4175: 4095: 4074: 4066: 3993:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3986: 3797: 3789: 3724: 3627: 3127: 2936: 2366:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

2343: 1949: 1888:

Baker has a 91-year-old daughter. 111 years old seems pretty believable don't you think? --

1785: 1555: 1268: 1187: 1061: 871: 141: 3895: 3860: 3762: 3681:

WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

3651:

3542:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

2244: 2214: 2195: 1997:

Let me know if you can get this list into shape, so that it is not in danger of deletion.

1964: 1811: 1789: 1624: 1525: 1372: 1250: 909: 622: 50: 3687:

Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

600:

shorter. If we do so, the lists could be by chronological order rather than age-ranking.

2290: 1339: 810: 4397: 4381: 4260: 4047: 3955: 3214: 3018: 2877:

Therefore I am once again reverting your edits, since their use does not conflict with

2165: 2095: 2000: 1867: 1751: 1696: 1644: 1444: 1293: 1193: 1137: 1087: 1068: 1046: 1025: 980: 818: 788: 766: 671: 635: 578: 539: 879: 870:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under

4295: 4279: 3805: 3482:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3425:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3400: 3313: 3082: 2908: 2580: 2576: 2318: 2135: 923:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 626: 3302:"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject World's Oldest People for a 2311:

on November 10, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at

2161:

Siamese Turtle, can you report this crazy person to an admin for possible blocking?

1988: 486: 4346: 4330: 3926: 3910: 3487: 3483: 3430: 3426: 4149: 3372:

wikimedia.org.uk with an email address that she can contact you at? All the best,

2271:, your opinions for this article would be appriciated, their trying to delete it. 1907: 670:

Greetings, the consensus discussion was that "race data" could stay for U.S. data.

71:

field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

3277:

I agree that supercentenarians are very very very very very very very very good.

2657:

It seems that you have misunderstood the guidelines and the changes that I made.

1418: 4550: 4534: 4448: 4432: 4233: 4217: 4121: 4078: 3734: 3607: 3554: 3522: 3510: 3457: 3335: 3271: 2014: 960: 941: 3553:

Thanks for helping make Knowledge (XXG) better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,

2897:

Siamese Turtle, I'm astonished that you continue to evade a serious discussion.

1952:, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see 1566: 1212: 859: 2579:

as being politically charged and inappropriate. This list wrongly applies the

745: 3103:

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've reinstated that comment you removed from

1933:

to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only

4736: 4725:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins (2nd nomination)

4685: 4629: 4578: 4527: 4476: 4425: 4374: 4323: 4272: 4208: 4131: 4107: 4088: 4055: 4014: 3959: 3951: 3903: 3868: 3833: 3813: 3772: 3737: 3711: 3557: 3495: 3438: 3286: 3256: 3241: 3222: 3196: 3158: 3139: 3116: 3091: 3012: 2983: 2956: 2890: 2840: 2803: 2784: 2709: 2651: 2476: 2456: 2431: 2347: 2332: 2280: 2256: 2237: 2173: 2143: 2123: 2103: 2067: 2051: 2035: 2008: 1972: 1897: 1875: 1852: 1797: 1759: 1720: 1704: 1668: 1652: 1632: 1610: 1591: 1548: 1513: 1490: 1475: 1452: 1429: 1405: 1383: 1322: 1301: 1278: 1258: 1237: 1201: 1173: 1141: 1133: 1120: 1095: 1072: 1064: 1054: 1029: 1021: 1003: 988: 968: 949: 846: 826: 796: 773: 727: 679: 659: 643: 586: 567: 544: 523: 503: 80: 3232:

Hi! Please don't create unreferenced, single-sentence articles. Thanks.

1776:, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 1587:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cheers,

1233:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cheers,

483: 3703:

only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the

1334: 718:

Apologies, I misinterpreted 'subject' as meaning the title of the degree.

4733: 4626: 4575: 4524: 4473: 4422: 4371: 4320: 2971: 2923: 2904: 2878: 2871: 2865: 2859: 2853: 2847: 2820: 2755: 2739: 2733: 2727: 2721: 2691: 2680: 2670: 2666: 2660: 2621: 2615: 2602: 2597: 2572: 2566: 2561: 2548: 2542: 2530: 2213:

does it have Kowalski's country of birth as UKR? Is it better said "born

2191: 4186:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

4027: 739: 3981:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

3396: 2225: 2199: 1413:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/13562

63: 2749:

List_of_British_supercentenarians#British_emigrant_supercentenarians_2

2437:

If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see

1601:

did she really die, if so can you please post a link if there is any?

1501:

you dont have to travel around to trace your ancestors, you can go to

558:

on her page to the British format, putting the date before the month.

4669:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hannah Smith (supercentenarian)

4618:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Stanley Lucas (2nd nomination)

3453: 4516:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Grace Jones (supercentenarian)

3943:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Annie Butler (3rd nomination)

1683: 1265: 4567:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kama Chinen (3rd nomination)

4250:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kama Chinen (2nd nomination)

1330:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Pulsatilla alpina fruit

3788:, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for 2866:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2740:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2661:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2616:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2603:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2562:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2543:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_flags_to_indicate_locations_of_birth_and_death

2401:

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located

2289: 57:

on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to

2752:

dozens more similar instances of the flags being used to mislead.

1944:

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

1307:

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_people_with_the_longest_marriages

3516: 1734:

Some of Nick Ornstein's edits recently have been inappropriate:

994:

I'm not even sure who this person is! Which page is this about?

692:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_oldest_people_by_U.S._state

4189:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

2156: 1437:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Living_national_longevity_recordholders

753:

has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the

487:

http://pl.wikipedia.org/Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Wolfgang/brudnopis

3800:

with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of

2924:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

2860:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

2734:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

2667:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

2598:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

2549:

MOS:FLAG#Do_not_use_subnational_flags_without_direct_relevance

4034:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

2905:

MOS:FLAG#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations

2854:

MOS:FLAG#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations

2728:

MOS:FLAG#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations

2573:

MOS:FLAG#Overbroad_use_of_flags_with_politicized_connotations

2375:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration

474: 265: 92: 24: 4026: 2411:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop

2407:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence

1906: 1502: 1338: 927:

explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for

858: 3794:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:SiameseTurtle

2671:

MOS:ICON#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used

2134:

You are absolutely correct. Thank you for fixing my error.

1956:). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found 1228:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Frederick Butterfield

4712:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4656:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4605:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4554:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4503:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4452:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4401:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4350:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4299:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

4237:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

3930:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

3211:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of oldest twins

3047:) is banned from Knowledge (XXG) for a period of one year; 2848:

MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations

2722:

MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations

2681:

MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations

2567:

MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_non-sovereign_states_and_nations

1188:

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_American_supercentenarians

3892:

the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page

3857:

the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page

1985:

I thought I would make you aware of this new list here:

811:

http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_French_supercentenarians

787:? There's no need for a lot of redundant information.... 37:

to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out

4706: