User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 1

Woops...

...my bad on William Evan Allan's centennarian category. Forgot to take my dyslexia medicine. Sorry about that... wknight94 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That's no problem, Mister Knight. Bart Versieck 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bart, why do you insist on de-capitalizing titles, such as "Veterans by Country." Surely a newspaper capitalizes titles! Also, please stop deleting links to "Longevity Claims." Look, the purpose of "Longevity Claims" is to list claimed ages, so we can see that while one person might claim to be 115, another claims to be 118. Also, I prefer to consider Pawel Parniak a longevity claim, not a longevity myth. To me, a "myth" is not true (but may have some allegorical or storytelling value). Clearly, claims to 160, 150, 140 are clearly myths. However, age "115" is possible (if not very likely). Thus, we cannot say for sure that Pawel Parniak is a myth unless evidence is found to support that contention. In the meantime, let's list gray-area cases in longevity claims. As noted, the rules for inclusion:

1. Must be less than 130 years old (mainly 113-129). '

2. Must have a claim in the news, including a birthdate.

3. The claim has not been validated or invalidated.

If a claim is invalidated, we can move them to "longevity myth."

Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert, first of all, "country" is written without a capital letter "c", and, secondly, longevity claims is a redirect to longevity myths. Bart Versieck 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed longevity Claims should be changed into longevity claims, which is currently a redirect to longevity myths, so I asked the administrators to delete it in order for me to be ably to change its title. Bart Versieck 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

María Capovilla

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as it is considered vandalism. The article is being kept, but please leave the AfD notice until the discussion is closed. Thank you. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but it was a silly request, done by someone not knowing the facts. Bart Versieck 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ding Junhui

Hi. Can I ask where you got 4 March 1987 for Ding's birthdate? worldsnooker.com says 1 April, as does most of the sources I've seen. -- Arwel (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ibsf.org/profiles/dingjunhui.php Bart Versieck 12:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed table for WWI Survivors

Hi Bart, can you give feedback on the table that I have proposed in Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I - Rye1967 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can in a moment. Bart Versieck 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of personnel in WWI

I've added a sentence on the number of military casualties of WWI to Surviving veterans of World War I to illustrate the significance of the number of survivors. It would be better if the article had the total number of participants but I can't find that on Wikipedia. My interest in the list is related to the age of the surviors, I have no knowlege of the war. Can you help find the figure for the article or direct me to someone who might have more expertise? - Rye1967 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no clue, but you could always ask this at http://www.victoriacross.net/forum_topic.asp?tid=677, dear Rye. Bartje 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed Kosa from the list of surviving veterans? Did he die? If so, you need to change the world totals at the end of the article. Thanks. Czolgolz 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, looks like I caught you mid-edit. Good work. Czolgolz 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and forgiven, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Schlieffen-Plan links, edit-summary, and peacefulness

Hello there, Bart,
Ahh! now I see your point. In fact, at first I didn't understand because you unlinked only one Schlieffen-Plan where there were many others after it, which you at first did not unlinked as well. It was for that reason that I relinked it. Especially that I see no trouble at all in linking one item many times or whenever it occurres in the one article. On the contrary, I think it is quite very useful, especially if the linked item is so strongly related to the article: Sometimes the reader at first is not really interested in that linked item, but then, as He or She goes on reading and find that item appearing again and again, they start becoming interested in it. At this moment, if the item is linked only once when it was first mentioned, the reader will have to interupt his reading in order to find it, which itself might take sometime especially if He or She is of the kind that does not make use of the search capabilities of their web-browsers (and how many those are! :-)), this applies too much to the Schlieffen-Plan. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any harm in linking things afterall, especially if they were so closely related to the main topic (again such with the S. Plan!) apart from that the text will appear all in blue each time! But most of Wikipedia pages are already full of such blue text, of course, including the WWI page, so it doesn't really matter, nor that the reader will really notice it (unless He or She wants to notice it!).
But I noticed in your response, in your "edit summary", that your were upset at my rv: "For your information, I unlinked it again, because there is already a link to it in a previous alinea"_ that was what you siad, and I know that this sort of response might have been caused by an assumption of yours that I was being unappreciative of your contribution, which is indeed, I assure you, the last thing I would want to do! Nothing really makes me more happy than when someone makes a constructive and useful edit - that's what the whole thing is really about, in the most practical and abstract senses of the thing that is Wikipedia. But the truth is that my rv came in misunderstanding, or in fact, no understanding at all of your edit, as I tried to explain above: That you unlinked only one item where there were still many others later-on. Here, in the first place, I must ask you to try to describe or indicate in the "edit summary" box what your edit is about as briefly as you may - it is always better than nothing. Because sometimes when you do this, a potential misunderstanding of your edit may be avoided. You see here now, after you wrote an explanation in your second edit, I got ya!! But generally, I noticed that also in your other contributions, you generally seldom write anything in the "edit summary" box. Of course, it is in the end always up to you, as well as what should happen with all those unlinked Schlieffen-Plan ex-links(!), but this is just an advice - it is only fortunate that in this great project, no one really has an authority over another! writing in the edit-summary box also is useful as to indicate whether the edit is made by a vandal or not; sometimes I just don't compare versions if the newer revision is being supplied with good and comprehensive edit-summary note.
Sorry for the long note, but still one more thing to be mentioned here: As you have seen it was all this misunderstanding that derived me to rv your edit, and nothing else. Misunderstanding is something that is very likely to occur in our activity here and in most other online interaction among the people. This I personally believe is because the online interaction is more difficult and more demanding than the other forms of interaction which indeed always depend on more than just mere language all the time. So, please, I must ask you to try to cool down, and do not so promptly assume that whomever interferes with you in the editing of whatever detail is someone who's doing it in bad faith. The ideal is that editors and contributors WANT to build a good article, that's the aim, and nothing really that pertains to them personally and directly. In this regard I have read a number of articles on that matter, which were really helpful for me, not only in determining how my ACTION would be, in Wikipedia, but more significantly, how my REaction should be. I found so many responses so far, and I am always contented that non of them can ever upset my own relationship with what I'm doing here, because I really must by enjoying it if I am to continue doing it! Here are those articles: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Criticism is Feedback , Forgive & Forget , Principle of Constant Respect, Along with the links provided earlier, these might be of great help as to the, yes, BEST kind of social behavior in such a great project. the last 3 links are particularly intersting and I am convinced that eventually, most users of Wikipedia, and similar projects, will most inevitably become so accustomed to it.
I wish you an ever-increasing enjoyment, editing and transforming that great project, Maysara 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, and likewise then. Bartje 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nederlandse Wikipedia

Hoi Bart, met [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Nicklaarakkers]. Ik kan je niet via de Nederlandstalige wiki meer bereiken want ze hebben mij geblokkeerd. Ik begrijp alleen niet waarom, waarschijnlijk omdat ik deze [[1]] afbeelding hebt gemaakt in reactie op het steeds maar op de verwijderlijst zetten van mijn afbeeldingen, terwijl ik die toch altijd duidelijk laat vergezellen met een logo. Kan jij misschien verhaal halen bij [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Siebrand] waar deze onzin op slaat? Groeten Nicklaarakkers 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ja, dat wil ik wel doen, maar ik ben daar al wel sinds enkele maanden niet meer op actief d.t.v. die herrieschopper uit Thailand (zijn "naam" ben ik ondertussen zelfs ook al vergeten, zo "belangrijk" vind ik hem). Extremely sexy 18:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

REDLINKS

Bart, sometimes red links are good for FUTURE adds. If someone clicks on the link and there's no one there, maybe they can start an article. → R Young {^yakł_talk}

Okay then, Robert. Extremely sexy 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem with headlines?

Bart, I'm extremely irritated that you are going around destroying headlines. Last I checked, the main words in headlines are capitalized. Thus, for you to change "Problems with Documentation Process" to "Problems with documentation process" is a violation of grammar use. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert, for your information, someone already did that and I only reverted another change: just look at this previous edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longevity_claims&diff=56051069&oldid=56044549, and write to that very person, please. Extremely sexy 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING FRAUDULENT AMERICAN WORLD WAR I VETERANS

Counting three "World War I ERA" veterans as actual World War I veterans is shamefully dishonest. This list is not an accounting of "World War I ERA" veterans -- it is a list of Wolrd War I veterans, period. A World War I veteran is someone who serve in the armed forces during World War I, a conflict which ended with an armistice on November 11, 1918. A man who enlisted in 1919 did not serve in World War I. What's more, since he enlisted after the war was over, he did not even enlist with the intention of serving in the war. "World War I ERA" veterans do not receive a World War I pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs; no one, except a few cranks on this board, considers them to be the equivalent of World War I veterans. No other nation on this list includes "World War I ERA veterans" on their rolls; why should they be included on the U.S. list? It comes across as an embarrassing attempt to pad our numbers. If the purpose of this page is to keep an ACCURATE census of living World War I veterans worldwide -- and that's what I thought it was, anyway -- then these three men should be removed from the list permanently. If not, then heck, let's put Merlyn Krueger back up there, too. Hey, he SAID he was a World War I veteran, didn't he? 68.175.88.20 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely do see your point, but "fraudulent" and "cranks" is a bit harsh, is it not, and you should have pointed this out at the talk page of that particular article instead of continuously reverting all our work without any justification at all, plus ask Robert too. Extremely sexy 07:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Johanna Booyson

I've reverted your nomination of this article for speedy deletion. There are a number of problems:

• You don't give any reason for speedy deleting it. Please don't use the {{delete}} tag as it gives admins no information abut why you believe the article should be deleted.

• You replaced the content of the article with the tag. This is not the proper procedure. You should add the tag to the top of the article, leaving the content in place. Again this makes it possible for admins to see whether the article should be deleted or not.

• Most importantly, I see nothing wrong with this redirect. Since you offer no explanation of why it should be deleted, I have reverted it back to its former state.

Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that you've done this to a whole sequence of articles claiming in edit summaries that "it's not a redirect at all". I don't understand that comment since these very clearly are redirects. That is also not a criteria for speedy deletion even if it were true. I must ask you to stop doing this. Thanks, Gwernol 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, so then I will reinstate that particular tag for all 7 articles involved right now and explain exactly why they should be removed, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the reasons you cite are not valid criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that an article may be written in the future isn't a good reason to delete the redirects now. The people are mentioned on the article redirected to, so until someone writes enough to justify a separate article, its perfectly valid to keep these redirects in place. I'm reverting your tags back, please don't replace them again. Thanks, Gwernol 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But so then you can redirect anything to anything you want, which is really ridiculous. Extremely sexy 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. These are legitimate redirects: Johanna Booyson is mentioned in the longevity article so redirecting from Johanna Booyson to that article makes perfect sense. Someone searching for "Johanna Booyson" gets redirected to the article that at least has some information about that person. When someone is ready to write a full article about Booyson they can do so simply by editing the article and replacing the Redirect (hopefully adding at least a "See also" link to the longevity article). What's wrong with that? Gwernol 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I would prefer to create an article about those 7 persons involved before referring to other articles mentioning them by using or via redirects, moreover, then they would definitely be superfluous and replaced by a link under "see also", as you pointed out correctly, hence. Extremely sexy 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of [[ ]] around date on Henry Allingham

I wikified the date so that a signed in user can view the date in their preferred format, be it 6 June or June 6, etc. Please do not dewikify it again. TheEnlightened 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But, as I explained for my removal, it's already wikified at the beginning of the article. Extremely sexy 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You appeared to of missed the point, the date may of been wikified before hand but this particular instance it was not, thus not in a readers perferred format. Also is does not hurt to have something wikified twice in an article incase the reader doesn't notice the first instance and i cannot really see the downside to that, other than the pages file size may be 0.009 kb larger. TheEnlightened 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant in fact, so no double wikifications in the same article. Extremely sexy 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't clearly state what you also meant but if it was about the file size being bigger then you may want to know that i was being sarcastic, the actual increase in file size from the additions of two open and close square brackets would be so small that it is probably impossible to measure without out great effort.

I feel that your comments also make me believe that you didn't understand that i didn't wikify the date so people could go to the date's article but so that the reader could view the date in their preferred format and so stops any possible edit wars between people who prefer one format over another.

On another angle if you do not want the date wikified as your are worried about Wikipedia's bandwidth and hosting I can assure you that the addition of the brackets then you are being over sensitive (and taking the wrong course of action) as wikipedia has plently of bandwidth and activily encourages users too add to articles and create new ones. Or if you are worried about user's with dial up connections then you are again taking the wrong course of action. TheEnlightened 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just about the links to the same article featuring in it, hence, my dear friend, and, by the way, there is just one format (being June 6 in this particular case), because the other one is in fact a redirect (c.q. 6 June). Extremely sexy 10:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with double wikilinks in an article as i have stated many times before. You also appeared to misunderstand what i said about the wikipedia software. If a user states a date in an article, say for instance the 6th day of June and writes it like June 6 in square brackets the wikipedia software will make it appear in the format which a signed in user prefers. It knows which format the user prefers as it is set in "Date and Time" of tab their "My Preferences" page. You can experiment and try this yourself. TheEnlightened 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for telling me, Enlightened One. Extremely sexy 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with English

Bart, it is extremely irritating that you presume to know English well, when you don't. To say that Elizabeth Bolden lives in a nursing home 'over there' is completely ridiculous. Also, your penchant for adding unnecessary 'and's' is irritating as well. I scored a perfect score on the GRE writing test. I know English, and your English needs work. Thus, if another editor deletes your bad grammar, you should accept it as such. 65.81.27.208 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an anonymous user, so why should I listen to you at all? Extremely sexy 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users can't make valid arguments? Where is the logic in that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mama's Silk Purse (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

That's not what I wrote, and, moreover, his or hers argument is invalid anyway, so why bother in the first place? Extremely sexy 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Joanna DeRoover

Hello Bart, might you be able to help provide some references for the Joanna DeRoover article? Everything I come across appears to be a Wikipedia derivative, and the original author was an anonymous editor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then: I will take a look at it right now, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Whoops. You're right. The external link does refer to the same book in the References section, but the References section doesn't refer to the website. Somehow my brain muddled that up. Sorry. Twisted86 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven, my dear twisted friend. Extremely sexy 07:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

La! Then all is well in the world! Twisted86 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, apart from myself that is

. Extremely sexy 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Edna Parker AFD

Hi Bart. Please do not in any way alter, rephrase or otherwise edit the decisions of closing administrators in deletion debates. Thanks in advance for your absolute cooperation on this point. Deizio talk 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay: sorry then. Extremely sexy 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, same goes for below :) Deizio talk 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiss for you

. Extremely sexy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on linking

Please ensure that when making minor edits to create bluelinks you don't redirect to disambiguation pages or mislink. Your recent edit to Neil Robertson (snooker player) created a link to Joe Perry, which is a disambiguation page. The correct form is Joe Perry, markup: [[Joe Perry (snooker player)|Joe Perry]]. Deizio talk 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well: I in fact wanted to check this after having supper. Extremely sexy 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour

May I ask why you deleted the prod on Julia Sinédia-Cazour? They are legitimate claims for deletion. You deleted it without a comment and without any discussion. I am reverting it. If you do not agree with the prod, state why.--Thomas.macmillan 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies, as I just found your comments on the talk page. --Thomas.macmillan 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Apologies accepted, but she really is notable. Extremely sexy 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of vandalism

I am a long-standing editor of the article Richard Nixon. Please refrain from making allegations of vandalism when they are, in fact, simply edits you do not particularly like. Thanks. Cripipper 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's simply not true at all that I don't like them, but you linked someone again who had already been linked, hence. Extremely sexy 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

November 12th, 2006

Hello, Bart. I did some calculating on Ford & Reagan's ages (#of days). Ford's 34,089th day won't be 'till November 12th, 2006. I've edited part of the first paragraph of the Gerald Ford article (removing the mentioning of Ford having become the longest-lived President), to reflect your correct calculations. I'm sorry for ever doubting you, I'm glad you stuck to your guns. What a sharp eye. PS: Here's hoping, for good health to Jerry as he's on the eve of breaking Reagan's record. GoodDay 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my dear friend, and likewise, so "good day" to you and to him, but, by the way, what's your first name? Extremely sexy 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My first name is 'Good' GoodDay 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really (no joking)? Extremely sexy 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by PMA. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

{{unblock|I didn't know you were an administrator, but blocking me for reverting something is a bit harsh}}

Wait a moment, I've approached the blocking admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of speediness, I'm provisionally unblocking you, since at least one other admin and myself also found the block exaggerated. However, please be aware that this is subject to further consultation with PMA, who I couldn't reach just now. And do please take this as a warning to be more careful with talking of "vandalism" when reverting other users, okay? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and I obviously will. Extremely sexy 09:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Please don't de-wikify dates. The wikified version is important to support the various date formats used around the world (even when it's redundant). I noticed you did this in the JFK article you just edited, so I thought I'd mention it. Rklawton 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand what you mean, but I did this because his exact date of death is already wikified at the very beginning of the article, hence. Extremely sexy 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying dates has nothing to do with redundancy and everything to do with displaying the date properly for folks used to reading dates with a different format. The wikified date will display according to the preferences expressed by each user. For example, many Europeans would type today's date as 28 November 2006. By wikifying each and every instance of a date in an article, we ensure that users, no matter where they are from, read the date in a format friendly for them. As a result, I must ask you to not de-wikify any dates. It's disruptive. Rklawton 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, but as a result his exact date of date could be mentioned and wikified 5 times in the article: strange. Extremely sexy 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, and that is fine. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for details. Rklawton 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the policy, so be it. Extremely sexy 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Missorting

As of tomorrow, it will be one year since you claimed to understand how the indexing sort keys work. So why are you messing around with missorting again now?[2] Gene Nygaard 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean in fact this applies for first names as well then, huh? Extremely sexy 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep. All the characters get indexed. Spaces, too, or asterisks, hyphens, whatever (that's why we use one of them for the main article in a category, to get it at the top of the listing, before the alphabetical entries. And strip other punctuation especially at the beginning before the first letter, which isn't that common but sometimes happens, as with an inverted ¿ at be beginning of the title of some Spanish song or other works of art. Gene Nygaard 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, Gene. Extremely sexy 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody nominated that article for deletion. Gene Nygaard 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, and he really is stupid. Extremely sexy 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty strange that you haven't added a Keep comment in that case. Gene Nygaard 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I will right now, and will you too, but I had also been waiting for Robert, who hasn't even responded yet. Extremely sexy 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing & history

Please, learn to use the "Show Preview" button. It is absolutely rediculous for you to edit an article over fifty times in one day (as you did to Lyndon B. Johnson's). /Blaxthos 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it, but you are exaggerating, since at the time "Wikipedia" was having problems showing the new versions, and someone else was editing at the same time, so it was showing incorrect versions as well, even from a couple of hours before, stating it was the latest version, hence. Extremely sexy 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition of deleted categories

You added a category that had just been depopulated by Alphachimpbot to Jack Palance. Please do not repopulate legitimately removed categories. Thanks. alphachimp 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no intention at all of doing this, but I edited the previous version of the article with that category. Extremely sexy 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited controversy

Hi Bart, sorry for being a stickler for proper sourcing, but it's part of my genetic makeup I suspect ;^) If you are aware of a source for this controversy, please add it to the wikilinked article, then we can toss the fact template here. Thanks for understanding, Crum375 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand, and I definitely will. Extremely sexy 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford article

I'm sorry for my mistake and two reverts. However, please consider providing edit summaries on your edits and don't mark all of them as minor. Other editors will understand you better this way. Thank you.--Pethr 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and I will in the future. Extremely sexy 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion

Hi Bart, I reverted what appeared to be typographical errors: excessive space before the 'See also' and using a lower case for the egg link. If you have any question about any of these changes let me know. Thanks, Crum375 13:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be lower case, and this excessive space is necessary, since the picture should be with the correct text. Extremely sexy 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, a wikilink which is overriden by a link text such as this one should reflect the exact spelling of the entry. In this case the spelling in the entry is 'Egg (biology)', as all WP entries must have a capitalized first letter. The overriding link text is 'egg' which is of course lower case, as is grammatically required by the sentence. Regarding the excess space, I am not sure what you mean; when I look at the article, there appears to be excessive (and ugly) amount of space before the 'See also' section - why do you want that? Crum375 14:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I noticed that all Wikipedia links referred too in articles are in lower case (apart from names, of course, which always are capitalized), unless they are at the very beginning of a sentence, and in this particular article itself the "See also" section should be written exactly under that very picture belonging to the previous section, hence. Extremely sexy 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart, please sign your messages, as providing just the date is confusing. Also, we use lower case if there is no text override needed (e.g. if 'egg' was a single unique article we would use it in lower case), but once an override is needed or used, we use the exact spelling (including capitalization) of the entry (copy-paste) for the actual link, and the grammatically required spelling for the overriding hyperlink text. Hence in this case we need to use 'Egg (biology)' in the hidden link as it matches the actual spelling of the entry, and 'egg' as the overriding hypertext link. Regarding the excessive spaces, you keep saying 'sexy', I am sorry but I don't see what leaving all this empty space in an article has to do with 'sex'. To me it's just ugly and unnecessary. Crum375 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just gave you the reason, and I always do sign my posts, since that's my nickname: got it now, huh? Extremely sexy 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart, I am assuming that you are doing this in good faith and not trying to disrupt, but the overall effect is still disruptive. You have now reverted 2 editors 5 times, violating the WP:3RR rule. This can lead to a block. Please revert yourself. Thanks, Crum375 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But this time I did not revert though. Extremely sexy 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Signing your comments

Hi, I saw some comments on the JFK talk page that you signed as "Extremely sexy" (specifically here and here), I'm not sure if signing comments that way violates any policies, but it seems pretty sketchy. --Matthew 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's automatically, since it's my personal nickname. Extremely sexy 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Bart, I would like to refer you to WP:SIG and WP:UN which explain in more detail the usefulness of signatures and the recommendation that they are associated with your user name. Perhaps if you really like the present text of your signature you could make that text a link to your user page or talk page by changing your preferences signature to [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely Sexy]] or [[User talk:Bart Versieck|Extremely Sexy]]. Thanks for your time. --Matthew 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do the very thing. Extremely sexy 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, being able to get to other users talk pages more easily is greatly appreciated. --Matthew 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed something at my personal preferences' page. Extremely sexy 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Witness Lee, Local Churches

Bart, some 'Christian apologists' (i.e. people that believe its their job to tell other people what to believe) continue to hack the Witness Lee and Local Churches articles. I'd like it if you could:

A. Help me against them

B. Notify a higher-up sysop to protect these articles. They should be objective, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for proselytyzing.

Sincerely, Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will notify someone else of this vandalism. Extremely sexy 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Emiliano Mercado del Toro

Just curious as to why you reverted my edit to this page. Thanks, -- Pinball22 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply because Puerto Rico definitely is a country. Extremely sexy 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How are you defining country? I changed it because to me country implies sovereign state, which Puerto Rico, as a territory of the United States, certainly isn't. Pinball22 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but it also belongs to the category of Spanish-speaking countries over here at "Wikipedia", dear friend. Extremely sexy 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, I suppose. I just wanted to clarify, for the purpose of this article, that what was meant was just Puerto Rico and not the entire US. Pinball22 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but thanks anyway for your input. Extremely sexy 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Defaultsort

What is your problem with the defaultsort template? - Kittybrewster 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all, but is it your intention to use it for all articles? Extremely sexy 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have no objection, why did you remove it? Yes; it saves space and typing. - Kittybrewster 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea at all whether it was part of the new policy, and, moreover, then you have got your work cut out too. Extremely sexy 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is "us" rather than "me". I am sure you will join the growing numbers of those who use the template. - Kittybrewster 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deal, but for all existing articles? Extremely sexy 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may take a few weeks. :) - Kittybrewster 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck to you => I will help. Extremely sexy 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Graeme Dott Image

Hi,

I can't find the source of that image but, from memory, it's on the BBC website somewhere. Sorry I can't be more helpful bigpad 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So you didn't save it onto your own computer at all? Extremely sexy 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Gerald Ford

Hi Bart, why have you reverted my edit? The ref is unnecesary since the first one does the job very well, is improperly formatted and links to page requiring registration. I'd appreciate at least edit summary in such case... Thank you.--Pethr 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, but you didn't give an edit summary yourself either, so I didn't know about your own reason for deletion. Extremely sexy 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"rm unnecessary ref" seems like pretty good edit summary to me. Why did you think it isn't?--Pethr 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But I really had no clue or whatsoever why you described it as being unnecessary, so you should have written the same as you did over here, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nixon pic

Where'd it go? Cripipper 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, because apparently it doesn't exist anymore (red), so maybe someone erased it for reason of copywrite? Extremely sexy 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Father Nicholas Kao Se Tseien

Hellow Bart, thanks for the useful link you provided. I've added that as a reference, and created a redirect (since the spelling of the name used in the Vatican Radio article is different from that used in the local newspaper). Hope it's ok. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, and thanks as well. Extremely sexy 11:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Local churches

Bart, someone inserted a libelous attack message on the local churches talk page which includes some kind of illegal insertion to prevent further editing. When I tried to respond, the SPAM FILTER blocked me...but only for this section. Clearly, whoever planted this 'bomb' knew what they were doing. How can labeling a church as 'organized crime' be a fair discussion? How can not allowing an alternative viewpoint be fair (the sheer hypocrisy of which is astounding...the charge made below is not allowing alternative viewpoints, yet the user inserted a Trojan spam to prevent alternative viewpoints). Please forward this to a higher editor. Clearly, an attack like this is no different than someone labeling Martin Luther King Jr a "Communist", attacking gays, etc.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't even bother to note it is "controversial"

I will now notify arguably the best moderator. Extremely sexy 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra succession boxes

Bart, with the 'world's oldest person' and 'world's oldest woman' being the same most of the time, I don't think we need extra succession boxes except when the titles split.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand, dear Robert. Extremely sexy 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

Hello Bart, I noticed that you tend to the articles concerning supercentenarians. I am a German interpreter: if you should notice any such articles which could benefit from the German Wikipedia, let me know and I will help. - Gilliam 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so, buddy. Extremely sexy 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Please, change your signature so that people know right away it's you. I also suggest you don't have "Extremely sexy" in your signature either. Thank you. Kamope · talk · contributions 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I already changed it into a link though. Extremely sexy 23:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant, change "Extremely sexy" to something else, like "Bart Versieck" or even "Bart". Kamope · talk · contributions 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's just a nickname, dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Peters disambiguation page

Please, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The essence of the disambiguation page is to help people find information about the one thing or person (among many similar) that they are looking for, and to keep the references as clean and simple as possible--so, one wikilink per reference. Removing the link from the title of Tom Peters' book helps keep the page simpler without preventing someone interested in that Tom Peters from finding the relevant article; removing the link from the cartoon title just makes it more difficult for someone interested in that particular Tom Peters to get to the most useful page. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought no links were allowed, hence. Extremely sexy 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry article

I deleted two trivia pieces in the John Kerry article, because they can already be found in the Personal Life section and it seems silly to put them in trivia when they are already in the main body of the article. I am fairly sure that it is Wikipedia policy to cut down on Trivia sections as much as possible and to work it into the actual article, so I am very unsure as to why you reverted it. Mullibok 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I checked this, but could not find a reference at all to his height apart from the one in that particular section, and the other statement, i.e. the one about his fondness for icehockey, isn't explained that clearly at all. Extremely sexy 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So how many times does his height need to be mentioned for it to be taken out of the trivia section? How many times does it need to be mentioned that he likes ice hockey? Is he an avid ice hockey fan, but not an avid windsurfing fan? Is there any evidence for that? If not, why repeat ice hockey? I think it looks very bad and disjointed for an article to repeat itself this way, and I cannot imagine a print encyclopedia doing the same. Pick one place such information belongs, and remove repetition. Mullibok 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I wrote (read it again, please) that I can't find his height mentioned somewhere else in the article, and, concerning his love for ice hockey, that's not really stated that obviously in my honest opinion, hence revert. Extremely sexy 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did read it, and I still don't see why you think his height needs to keep being mentioned. It's in personal life; how many other sections should it be in before it can be un-trivialized? And Personal Life also states he enjoy ice hockey, so how is it unclear that he is a fan? I've seen you say it, but I don't really see an explanation. Here's what I would like to see: 1) why his height needs to be mentioned multiple times 2) how does stating that he enjoys ice hockey not clearly indicate he is a fan?Mullibok 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See reaction on talkpage. Extremely sexy 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Longest marriages

Hello Bart! I saw you're from the Netherlands and you are working on the Durch Wiki as well. So I have a question: some of the information on List of people with the longest marriages is from the Dutch Wiki:
1. Can you look if I've translated all things right? 2. Do you know some of the makers of the Dutch article, so we can have the sources to confirm?
Bye Statistician 08.02.2007 13:34 (CET)

Well, I'm from Flanders in fact (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium), and I will ask them, but finding a source won't be easy. Extremely sexy 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Eisenhower article consistency

Why did you undo my wikification of Hawaii, especially while leaving Alaska wikified right above it, in the Eisenhower article? I think the article deserves consistency in that regard. --Adavidb 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because it has already been wikified before. Extremely sexy 14:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oldest people

Bart, can you ask a sysop to protect oldest people from editing by unregistered users? The amount of silly vandalism is heavy and a waste of time for everyone.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so immediately then. Extremely sexy 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Signed comments on talk pages

Unless you are refactoring a talk page or archiving a talk page per the respective procedures for refactoring and archiving, please, do not edit comments on talk pages, rather post new comments ONLY. Please, see the talk page guidelines for more information. Thanks. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was told, however, that it is allowed at this "Wikipedia" though. Extremely sexy 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While guidelines may not have quite the force of policy, this is one that's taken pretty seriously, as it's really the only exception to collective ownership of pages here - a signed comment on a talk page is "owned" by the person who made it, in any case, such edits have no practical purpose other than to increase contention - talk pages are not held to article standards, and there is no reason for them to be kept fit for publishing, so the only thing editing comments there accomplishes is to annoy others. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

(also... for what it's worth, it's usually better to reply to talk page comments on the poster's talk page, as they may not be watching your talk page, and posting to their page brings up the "you have new messages" box, whereas replying on your own does not.) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

That's right, my dear and beloved friend. Extremely sexy 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to John Kerry

Hello. Just noticed you undid my removal of the semiprotected tag to John Kerry. The reason that I removed the tag is because the page isn't semi-protected: I assumed that tagging it would protect it, but of course it doesn't (try logging out and editing the page). The page needs to be protected by an administrator and then tagged as such. In the meanwhile though, the tag does seem to deter vandals! Thanks matt.smart ^talk/contribs 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence, but it's my pleasure, and I hope it will continue to do so. Extremely sexy 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Biel

I would greatly appreciate if you explained why exactly you are reverting my edits, especially since in the other photo its obviously non-professional and she's not even looking at the camera. Since both are released under the GFDL license, there's no reason to remove it.--CyberGhostface 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That one is much better, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Biel&diff=108174562&oldid=108171739. Extremely sexy 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not much better...she's not even looking at the camera, and it's obviously done by a non-professional with a camera. And since you're bringing up its deletion...if you checked out its log, you would have realized that it was restored by another admin after authorization was received!--CyberGhostface 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I stand corrected, but this picture of yours was already deleted before as well, and I don't know why. Extremely sexy 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing references

Why did you remove the reference in the Ted Kennedy article this afternoon? /Blaxthos 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not, but we edited simultaneously (I and an anonymous user: you?), hence. Extremely sexy 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Goldschläger?

Can you source the "gold fever" statement? I have only heard of gold fever referring to a gold rush. All the articles I have seen just refer to it as "gold allergy" or "reaction to gold". Thanks! CKnapp 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original edit wasn't mine though. Extremely sexy 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. CKnapp 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all though, man, but I sent the poster a message (it's problematic though, since it's a shared IP from a Massachusetts school I noticed). Extremely sexy 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on Emiliano Mercado del Toro

You recently reverted my change "age 115" to "aged 115". Correct English syntax is age 115, which describes a person's age. Aged is a verb form, and aged 115 doesn't make sense. — ERcheck (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: I first looked it up to make absolutely sure, and I'm sorry to have to say that you are wrong, plus other users agree with me apparently, since they wrote likewise. Extremely sexy 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, indicate where you looked it up. — ERcheck (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In "Van Dale Handwoordenboek Engels-Nederlands" (Dutch) => aged ten = tien jaar oud (Dutch for ten years old). Extremely sexy 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an English reference? As a native English speaker, I find "aged" very awkward. — ERcheck (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed: "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (in fact, it says over one million copies sold). Extremely sexy 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe both constructions are incorrect. I would have said "When he died at the age of 115 years and five months, ...". The verb form "died" in this case must be followed by a preposition, with the noun "age" being the object of the preposition. —Gintar77 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be right: I will check. Extremely sexy 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's correct for the sentence in the article I think, while we were in fact discussing the "aged" in the template on the right (which would apply for all people). Extremely sexy 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My apologies. In that case, I've seen it both ways, so, I won't argue there. By the way, the comma is not required after the word "died" in the article sentence. (i.e. "when he died at the age of ...", not "when he died, at the age of ...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gintar77 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Okay then, but is it wrong to put it there? Extremely sexy 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's "wrong" per se. My writing handbook states that "although commas should be used with distinctly parenthetical expressions, do not use them to set off elements that are only mildly parenthetical." In my opinion, the age is only mildly parenthetical and the first comma disrupts the flow of the sentence. But I'm not going to argue extensively over this. —Gintar77 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But you would still leave a comma? Extremely sexy 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to go to work for a while. Yes, the second comma (after "months") is required, because you're setting off an adverbial phrase at the beginning of a sentence (note that a comma is not required if it comes at the end. Ex.: When I was learning to ride bike, I fell off a lot. Compared to: But I fell off my bike a lot when I was learning to ride it.) —Gintar77 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: I agree. ~~

Your reverts at Hryhoriy Nestor

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --TAG 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: the link you provide is exactly the same one as mine, but I just decapitalized it, hence, dear Sir. Extremely sexy 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But your decapitalized version was NOT working as intended, and I've made you clearly aware of this in my edit comments - but you still reverted my edits --TAG 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely not true at all, since many claims in the past = many claims in the past, so, please, check this again right now: okay? Extremely sexy 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just happened to see this and try it myself -- the uncapitalized one does not work -- it just goes to the article and not the targeted section. Pinball22 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It does work for me, honestly, so maybe both of you should change your preferences somewhere, yeah. Extremely sexy 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply leave it as uppercase? Since it's something that's only visible when editing the page, I would think that making the link work for everyone would be much better than having it only work for some (1/3, going by this conversation) because of some invisible-to-readers stylistic concern. Is there something I'm missing here about why you want it to be the other way? Pinball22 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for leaving out the capitals, but I'm waiting for some administrator to clarify why you can't see it without them: strange. Extremely sexy 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just tried it in Internet Explorer, and that seems to be the difference -- usually I use Firefox, and it doesn't work there, but in IE it does. So it seems to me that it should be left as uppercase so that it works with both browsers. Pinball22 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But which browser is being used mostly? Extremely sexy 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you add an underscore, ex. [[Longevity_myths#Current_status]] the link should be compatible with all browsers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, dear Clown: a solution finally. Extremely sexy 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the link in the article still doesn't work for me in Firefox -- since I proved that simply capitalizing it works in both browsers, isn't that the best choice? Your question of which browser is used more is irrelevant, I think, if there is a solution that works correctly in every browser, which I assume you agree with, since you implemented the underscore suggestion. Pinball22 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I am curious as to whether it now works for the other guy, and why it still doesn't work for you, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lower case #сurrent_status does not work in Firefox 2.0.0.3 (and probably others) ! But Microsoft IE (in it's 6.0 version on my PC) is highly tolerant to errors and will accept any. If you will look in HTML for target page - you will see anchor with name="Current_status" used. Whitespaces will be replaced to _ automatically by Wiki software. But capitalization will not be changed. So it's clear for me that uppercase C must be used and Bart_Versieck has violated 3RR by reverting without finishing discussion. --TAG 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No way: I followed the Clown's instructions. Extremely sexy 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, answer which one works in your browser and your browser version:

1. Longevity myths#Current status 2. Longevity_myths#Current_status 3. longevity myths#current status 4. longevity_myths#current_status Firefox 2.0.0.3 (1. OK 2. OK 3. Nope 4. Nope) Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.061219-0316 (1. OK 2. OK 3. OK 4. OK) So, it's clear for me one must be used - with C capitalized --TAG 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All four of them actually, but I see your point: just wait until the Clown replies next time. Extremely sexy 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have Firefox 1.5.0.11, and I get the same results as TAG did with Firefox 2 -- only the first two work. I don't think you actually do see TAG's point, or mine... it's not "wait for an admin to reply and do as he or she says" (which isn't even the answer, in this case -- Clown's suggestion doesn't actually work without the capitals.) The point is to not keep reverting an edit without discussing with the other editor why you're having a conflict and coming to a resolution. In this case, I'm still unclear on exactly why you kept reverting it, since we all were agreed, even at the beginning of this process, that the link with the capital letters worked -- is there any reason at all to do it the other way? Pinball22 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only to avoid capitals, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But why is there any need to avoid capitals in links? Since they're not visible in the actual page, why would it matter to you whether they're there or not? Pinball22 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guessed this was standard Wikipedia policy though. Extremely sexy 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So will you now revert you own edit in such a way that the URL will become valid for both IE and Firefox? Thanks in advance. --TAG 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Extremely sexy 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please, take my apology for not explaining clearly what browser I was using during testing of that link. While it was specified in my user profile on Wikipedia, I should have noted it in comments in order to avoid this edit war. Once more sorry. --TAG 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and apologies accepted, Odessa. Extremely sexy 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected tag

Bart, are you going to apologize for the DUMBEST comment you've made all year? =>

(I left the semiprotect tag, but it isn't semiprotected since I am not an administrator: Robert, you still don't get it, do you, and, please, discuss the merger on the talk page before reinstalling all)

Read it again: the tag says it protects the article from editing by unregistered and newly-registered (less than 100-edit) users, NOT that you have to be an admin. to edit the article. The tag seems to be working fine, and I have no problem accessing the article.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not, but you are dumb yourself, man => everyone can put such a tag there, but exactly as with Ted Kennedy's article, it isn't really protected from editing in a way that any anonymous user can still edit it if he wants too, resulting in this f.e. Extremely sexy 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, please refrain from labelling other editors or their edits "dumb"; this at very best un-WP:CIVIL and could easily be treated as a WP:NPA violation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the 115+ list

Bart, I'm disappointed you deleted the 115+ list from the "oldest people" page. Even if someone makes a long list elsewhere, the 115+ list belongs on this page.

What is your problem? Why do you insist on un-capitalizing everything? You are wrong most of the time; most people simply don't want to bother with you so they let you have your way. Well, I'm telling you right now, back off, or there will be consequences.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a threat? => well, for your information, you are not an moderator (luckily, God is still around), and I did not delete it (please, do check your facts first), plus decapitalization is the policy over here, so, please, stop making such ridiculous accusations, and if you don't like it, just quit editing (for the better of "Wikipedia" as well). Extremely sexy 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you did not delete it, then why do you keep reverting to the deleted version? Second, I live in the USA and 'decapitalization' is NOT the policy in America. Third, I 'threaten' only in terms of what is legal to do. You don't give me credit when I find Jennie Newhouse's death date or Earnest MacPherson, 108, but you choose to criticize all the time. I can withhold information that you want, if you want to play dirty. Also, I only play 'hardball' when others throw things at me. Your hands are not clean as you think they are.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't necessary at all since you are already giving yourself credit all the time, and, by the way you have just been warned at your own talk page (all too rightly) for your series of uncivilized manners towards a lot of fellow editors (next time you will be blocked again), several users at the yahoo group about supercentenarians and the oldest people (like Jeff Knight f.e.) are having exactly the same problems with you as I'm having right now and right here, etc., so, I'm quite sure you get the picture, and I did revert it since the discussion about it is still going on. Extremely sexy 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For example: "you are dumb yourself, man". Name-calling, as usual, but you turn right around and pretend to have clean hands.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I only repeat your very own actions (not the other way round): I did not start this pathetic war of yours, man. Extremely sexy 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on capitalization: the two of you have had several arguments about capitalization, and I think all the problems can be worked out by reading the capitalization section of the manual of style. Ryoung, you're of course right that the standard style for headlines in English is to capitalize all significant words. Reading the guidelines, though, Bart is right about article titles and section headings on the Wikipedia: they should have only the first letter capitalized unless they would have other words capitalized within a normal sentence (as with the title of a book, for example.) However, Bart, this does not mean that words in wikilinks need to be decapitalized -- as we discussed earlier, links need to exactly match the title capitalization of the article (including capitalization of a target section if the link includes one) to be sure that they work correctly. Also, since the guidelines for talk pages state that they do not need to be brought up to publishing standards, there's no need to alter section titles to match the standard capitalization style, and since (as I discussed with you before) editing other users' comments is discouraged, edits such as this one [3] are therefore unnecessary and inappropriate. I hope this clarifies things for both of you -- please, when discussing a style or policy matter, try to reference the appropriate page that you're using as the basis for your edits; generalizations such as "decapitalization is the policy over here", without a link to the policy in question, serve only to confuse and frustrate others. Pinball22 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is (and apparently remains, regrettably so) in fact that Robert Young is stubborn and won't listen to any reason at all: if you can turn the tide, so to speak, I would be very greatful indeed, but up to now he is only accusing many editors with good intentions of God knows what, as he is doing with me (I wish you good luck anyway). Extremely sexy 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Come to the discussion page of Jimmy Carter. John 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right: I will. Extremely sexy 18:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of the oldest people

10:53, 1 April 2007 Bart Versieck (Talk|contribs) (Undid revision 119336977 by 74.138.102.134 (talk) => untrue: the very next five are other, already deceased, women)

Why did you revert the edit instead of just simply putting the next five, don't you think? 74.138.102.134 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: I think 80 is enough, or maybe 100, if you really want to, but 85 is rather a strange number, don't you think so too? Extremely sexy 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bart

Mr. Bart Versieck, what language is your userpage in (German, French, Italian, Greek, etc.: what is it?)? Also, are you related to the user Can't sleep, clown will eat me? And another thing: why does your signature say "Extremely sexy", when you are Bart Versieck? I would like to know these things. Thank you. King Lopez ^Contribs 08:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: it's in Dutch actually, and I just answered your question on his talk page, plus that's my nickname, hence. Extremely sexy 13:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful little edits on Larry Buendorf. I'm new to Wikipedia, and it's my first article. My wife introduced me to Wikipedia recently. VK35 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: it's my pleasure, and I can tell you must have a smart wife. Extremely sexy 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If she wasn't smart, then I wouldn't know how to begin to start a new article. I don't read Dutch, so I can't understand your Dutch user page. I have been to Antwerpen (mentioned in your page) and Utrecht. Thanks again for your edits. VK35 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's on the Dutch Wikipedia, where I started myself editing just a little over two years ago. Extremely sexy 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Post edit

Thank you for your attempt to help, but, please, don't change another editor's post as you did here. Thanks. Sundaybrunch 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it, man. Extremely sexy 20:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter vandalism

I noticed that someone had changed Carter's middle name to 'Ham' rather than Earl and removed the vandalism, and you changed it back, and then removed it again. While this is obviously an easy mistake to make on an article that probably attracts a lot of vandalism, it kind of unintentionally makes me look like a vandal on the page history. It's not a big deal obviously and as I say, it can be an easy mistake to make, but please take a little care to check whether changes to the page are actually vandalism before reverting them. Cheers, 217.38.66.40 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean, but I had to undo it to get back to all the vandalism, since you undid only one piece of it, in order to revert to the last unvandalized version, and I didn't note it as being vandalism, because it simply wasn't, which I also knew at the time, so logically speaking this won't go down as being such either, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's understandable then, I didn't notice there had been other vandalism on the page beforehand. The change of his name kind of stuck out, it had been there a little while and wasn't even funny so I reverted it. In any case, apologies as I didn't realise it was actually other vandalism you were trying to revert. 217.38.66.40 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem: apologies accepted, but don't you want to create an account right here, or do you prefer remaining anonymous? Extremely sexy 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably will create an account: I've been meaning to for a while, but not right now, since I'm too snowed under with work to contribute much here at the moment, so there's not so much point. However, when I have more time on my hands to contribute to articles, I'll get an account. 217.38.66.40 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your contributions in due course, my friend. Extremely sexy 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tane Ikai

Bart, I was going to start an article on her, but there was a 'redirect'. If you remove it, I do have Japan newspaper articles for her. R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I will now move the redirect. Extremely sexy 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999

Please, don't remove the unsourced tag from this article] without actually sourcing every entry, or else remove those which are not sourced. Corvus cornix 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So the really several general sources mentioned at the end of it are not enough? Extremely sexy 00:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of reverts

Bart, why are you reverting known facts? FACT: Lazare Ponticelli served in both the French and Italian armies in WWI. FACT: someone just changed the 'Veterans who died in 2006' to 'by country of service' format (so why not call it what it is?). PLEASE, EXPLAIN. R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I told you when I reverted your latest entry at Ponticelli's once again: that category doesn't exist, and, concerning the other revert, if you really want to do this, you should add this for all articles about the last remaining World War I veterans, not just the 2006 one. Extremely sexy 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you would explain why you made the change, it would be a lot easier for people to 'get along'! As for the other, I agree this should be added for 1999-2007 IF that is the format we use. I thought you would follow the example and do the rest. R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I will do so right away. Extremely sexy 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing shortcuts to fully qualified links

FYI, your recent edits to this Talk page were a complete waste of your time and energy ... using shortcuts such as WP:OR are very common (that's why they exist!), and there is absolutely no reason to disambiguate them as Wikipedia:No original research ... I have a stencil that I copy&paste on talk pages of newly created articles, and the same post appears on beau coup articles (nearly a dozen in the past 24 hours alone), always with the edit summary "Article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N."

Your apparent concern for the ignorance of newbies is admirable, but the point is to get them to click the links and find out what we're talking about ... after a while, they'll learn to recognize and use the shortcuts themselves.

Please refrain from changing these shortcuts in other editors' posts ... in my case, their use (like my signature) demonstrates that even though I may be using an anonymous IP account, I am not a Wikipedia newbie, and thus add verisimilitude to my comments. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, however, it's rather strange that redirect pages are being used for this, instead of the correct ones, especially for matters regarding help towards newbies. Extremely sexy 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read WP:SHORT? That article has two shortcuts for itself! Most of us have better things to do while editing than try to type very long strings like Wikipedia:What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls from memory (and correct the inevitable typing mistakes), or click to pages to do a copy&paste of the full text string, when WP:DNFT is much easier to remember and to type. 'Nuff said! —68.239.79.97 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and I rest my case. Extremely sexy 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Franz Künstler

Before making plaintive complaints to other admins, it might have been wiser to have checked your facts. The article Franz Künstler was speedily deleted twice, once by another admin, then by me, on perfectly good grounds (it had also earlier been turned into a redirect by another editor). The Talk page was also deleted twice, neither time by me.

The article contained nothing more than this:

Franz Künstler (born July 24, 1900) is, at age 106, the last living soldier of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. He served at the Italian front. He now lives in Niederstetten, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

No sources were given, and searching revealed no account that matched the article. This was a biographical article that made no claim as to the significance of its subject, and was into the bargain very short and unsourced.

Note also that I always explain my deletions, as I explain all my edits; you might not understand the standard Wikipedia code, which is, it's true, sometimes obscure; the polite (and more productive) course of action would have been to have asked me. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Perpetual problem with editing others posts after many warnings and promises to not do so

[ Consolidating these threads into one meta-topic per WP:REFACTOR so that the problem can be reviewed and addressed in one place. Further warnings should use WP:UWT templates so that the warning level is clearer for block-considering admins. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ]

Defiance

I strongly encourage you to re-think your selected course of action. As several experienced editors have pointed out, it is bad form to correct others' errors in talk comments. Unlike articles, in which editors are encouraged to make corrections, talkpages are signed and owned by the poster, and are not subject to publication or correction. Continued defiance and reverting after experienced editors have expressed disapproval only serves to show your willingness to disregard our norms and is generally disruptive. Even if it's not against policy, it is considered generally unacceptable; re-instituting the same changes twice after being asked to stop by multiple editors doesn't accomplish anything. /Blaxthos 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, so I honestly won't anymore. Extremely sexy 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning my edits

Please, understand that revising comments on another editor's talk page like you did here is unaccceptable. The message I left was between me and User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. You were not involved in this communication in any way. Sure there were typos, but that is my problem and not yours to fix. Postoak 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I only wanted to help, dear friend. Extremely sexy 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't change my edits. Postoak 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But it should in fact be "eliminating" instead of "eliminate", hence. Extremely sexy 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that you are changing another user's edits. The reason why you shouldn't do this was recently discussed here on your talk page. Postoak 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, ask the Clown: "prior to" is expected to be followed by a verb form ending with "-ing". Extremely sexy 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the grammar or spelling is incorrect. You do not have the right or authority to change another user's comments on a talk page that is not your own. Postoak 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even if I have the "all clear" from the talk page owner himself (c.q. the Clown), and, by the way, look here for an example of a correct use of "prior to": are you convinced now? Extremely sexy 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the talk page owner would quickly agree that you are not following the talk page guidelines in this situation. Postoak 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So will you correct your own spelling error then by you reverting your latest edit, please, Sir? Extremely sexy 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise I will do this again right now. Extremely sexy 22:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're again missing the point, Bart. Even if what Postoak wrote was incorrectly spelled or ungrammatical, you should not edit his comment. Read the talk page guidelines again, please, especially the section on editing comments. Notice the two statements "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc." and "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed." Therefore, it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to change other users' posts on talk pages for spelling or grammar errors. Also, in this particular case, you were actually changing the meaning of Postoak's statement: your version of the sentence, "I noticed that I should have reverted several versions prior to eliminating the vandalism", while perfectly grammatical, is not what Postoak was trying to say with his original statement. He did make two typos, but his intended statement was "I noticed that I should have reverted several versions prior to eliminate the vandalism." That would be ungrammatical if he were using the phrase "prior to"; however, in this case, those two words just happen to be next to each other. The intended meaning is the same as "I should have reverted to a version that was several versions before the current version in order to eliminate the vandalism." Does this make sense to you? And do you understand all three of the reasons that you should not change other user's comments? Looking back at your edit history, I see several places where you've done this. As I said before, it's always inappropriate, and more than once you have (inadvertently, I hope) not just violated policy but also changed the meaning of the comment in the process. You do some very good work here at the English Wikipedia, especially in keeping up with all the pages on supercentenarians, and I want to help you continue that by making sure you're clear on policy. Looking at your talk page (which you might want to archive some time, as it's getting rather long), I see that you've gotten into several arguments that appear to have arisen from misunderstandings, either of other users' meaning or of policy. I suspect this is largely a language thing -- your English is good, but it looks like sometimes you're not quite clear on some things. If you're ever not completely sure of the meaning of something, please be careful about editing it -- just ask on the article's talk page before making the change, or check with another user. Personally, I'm always happy to help, and I'm sure most other users would be as well. Sorry for the length of this comment, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across, and also to be clear that I mean this as constructive criticism to assist you in becoming an even better editor, which I'm sure you can be. Pinball22 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right: now it is clear, and thank you for your very constructive criticism indeed. Extremely sexy 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After we had this conversation yesterday I was happy, because I was sure you understood. Apparently, though, I was wrong, as you've done the same thing again at least three times since you made the above post: [4],[5], [6]. Do not edit other users' comments on talk pages. Not for grammar, not for spelling, not for any reason other than one of the few exceptions listed in WP:TALK. Please, read WP:TALK again, carefully, and make sure you understand why this is important. Pinball22 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

I'm making a new section here to be sure you see this. Over a month ago you said, in response to complaints by users Triona and Blaxthos about your editing of other users' comments on talk pages: "Point taken, so I honestly won't anymore." However, you continued to do so, eventually causing user Postoak to complain here. You did not appear to be understanding his point, so I tried, two days ago, to make it clear, and after the discussion we had, you said, "Right: now it is clear, and thank you for your very constructive criticism indeed." I assumed from this that you understood that you should not edit comments made by other people on talk pages, but then you did exactly that three times in the next day, as shown in these diffs: [7], [8], [9]. I left you another message yesterday explaining again, as clearly as I know how, that WP:TALK prohibits this, but since then you've edited the comments of others four more times: [10], [11], [12], [13].

Your repeated assurances that you won't violate the talk page guidelines again, followed almost immediately by multiple violations of those guidelines each time, lead me to two possible conclusions: either your understanding of English is much worse than I thought and you do not understand the rules listed at WP:TALK or my (and other users') explanations of them, or you are simply telling users who complain about your behavior that you understand and will follow the rules, and then deliberately break those rules. I hope that it's the former, but the number of times this has happened, not just with the guidelines for talk page editing, but also with other Wikipedia policies, is beginning to make me think that it's the latter. I'm not giving up hope yet, though, and so I'm going to state this again, as clearly as possible:

WP:TALK, which lists the guidelines for use of talk pages on the Wikipedia, makes the following important points:

• Editing others' comments is generally not allowed.
• Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
• It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc.
• There are exceptions, but only in the cases of removal of prohibited material, formatting errors, addition of the unsigned tag, and placing brief comments within a long post instead of at the end if necessary to more clearly respond.
• You may edit another user's comments if you have permission of the user who left the comment.

To clarify a few of the points made by the guideline, please note:

• "Formatting errors" refers to spacing and markup issues only, not grammar, spelling, or punctuation; even spacing and markup changes should only be made when absolutely necessary for readability.
• Permission means permission of the commenter, not permission of the user whose talk page the comment appears on.
• The fact that it says it is not necessary to correct spelling and grammar errors in comments is not meant to imply that it is allowed, just to clarify that such cases are not exceptions to the general rule that editing others' comments is not allowed.

To sum up: I'm concerned that you may be deliberately refusing to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially those described at WP:TALK. The general rule that you should follow is never edit a comment left by another user for any reason. If there is something about this, or any other policy, that you do not understand, please ask me or someone else to explain it to you. I'd like to see a reply from you that indicates that you completely understand what I've written here and will not edit other users' comments again. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible, since I know many of your edits are constructive, and I realize there may be a language barrier involved, but if you continue to ignore policies, guidelines, and the concerns of your fellow Wikipedians, someone will eventually move to stop your disruptive behavior. Please help me help you become a better editor before it comes to that. Pinball22 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did obey though by not reverting once more that comment made about the merger (I suppose you know what I mean), but it's very difficult indeed for me not to correct spelling mistakes, or other errors for that matter, made by others in talk pages, so I understand completely what you are complaining about to me and I honestly didn't do it deliberately: it's an obsession of some sort, and I was really convinced that it was allowed, since several other users told me, hence, plus it is my humble opinion that "it is not necessary" doesn't actually mean "it's forbidden", or does it? Extremely sexy 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you actually have obsessive-compulsive disorder, I understand how something like this could be very difficult, as I have it too. Unfortunately, saying that that's why you do it doesn't make it any less likely that some user is going to get angry with your repeated violations of the guidelines and attempt to have you banned. No, "it is not necessary" is not equivalent to "it's forbidden", in general. In this particular case, though, I think the intent really is to clarify that you shouldn't use that as an exception to the rule, especially since grammar and spelling corrections are not in the list of exceptions following the line "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed." While some users may have told you it's OK, obviously many feel it isn't, and so you need to go by the more restrictive interpretation to be sure to avoid conflict -- as it says in the sentence following the 'is not necessary' one, and as you've no doubt observed from the repeated complaints from other editors, "It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." In addition, the next line says, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." Since (as you saw in the discussion about your edit to Postoak's comment) it's very easy to inadvertently change the meaning of someone's words when you only intend to fix their grammar, this is another reason to avoid making even minor changes to other users' posts. Finally, beyond any argument about the exact intent of/guideline status of WP:TALK, edit wars based on this are likely to result in you violating the three revert rule, which is official policy and generally taken very seriously -- as it says, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." As I said, I can see why this might be hard, but it's really important that you stop -- if you keep doing it, at some point a less-patient editor will come along and report you for violating guidelines, and your history of continuing to do so despite repeated warnings is likely to look like willful disobedience to an admin considering a block. I hope this helps you understand how important this is, and if you seriously have OCD, a psychiatrist or behavior modification therapist can really help. I also highly recommend this book [14] -- the method described in it is very helpful in learning to deal with compulsions. Pinball22 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Extremely sexy 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to do... in the week since your comment above, you've edited the comments of others on talk pages at least 40 times. Amongst those edits, you edited my comment when you left that reply, which seems to indicate you're not even trying to stop. You've also gotten another complaint from a user about this ([15]), and during that discussion, you edited his comments twice. What is it going to take to get you to stop doing this? I'm really trying to be helpful and patient here, but to actually edit the comments of users asking you not to edit their comments makes it seem like you're deliberately trying to make me and others angry. On an unrelated note, the word hence doesn't actually work at the end of a sentence the way you use it. For example, while "Plus that's my nickname, hence I put it at the end of my posts." is a reasonable sentence, "Plus that's my nickname, hence." isn't. Pinball22 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So you mean "hence" (meaning "vandaar" in Dutch) is always followed by something? Extremely sexy 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. While there might be sentences where that's not the case, in general, hence should be used in sentences of the form "reason, hence result." Pinball22 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood, dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the solution: Wikipedia:Requests for comment using the user comment protocol. More than 2 users that have discussed this issue here. Plenty of documentation exists. Postoak 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to work this out without resorting to RfC, but I'm beginning to think that's not possible. Bart, you didn't even address the talk-page-editing part of my last comment in your reply, and since then, you've gotten another complaint (from user Sundaybrunch) about the same thing, to which you said "Got it, man." Obviously, though, you don't, or at least you don't think it's important enough to actually change your behavior, as you've done it again at least ten more times since you said that. Is there anything I can do to make you stop editing other users' comments on talk pages? Someone is going to end up opening a case about this at RfC if you don't, and they'll be perfectly within their rights to do so -- within the last two months five different people have discussed this issue with you, and yet you've done the same thing over 60 times in the last two weeks. As I said before, I don't want to see you get blocked or banned, because your contributions are valuable to the Wikipedia, and if you genuinely have an OCD issue with this, I understand, but you have to stop this disruptive behavior. Pinball22 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checking to make sure you saw this, since you didn't reply -- I thought you might have missed it if you just did a diff on this page, since I made two changes in a row. Pinball22 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, and I'm working on it, but you know it's very difficult for me, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

QUIT EDITING PEOPLE'S WRITINGS ON TALK PAGES

Bart, it is extremely rude and WRONG of you to edit other people's comments. Unlike an article, what is written on a talk page is represented as if written by that person. If they sign their name, they represent what they wrote as if they wrote it. To change what was written is, in fact, reverse plagiarism...attributing to someone something they didn't write. If you do not stop this incessant bad behavior, there will be consequences both here on Wikipedia and other academic sites. R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And unlike what you consider this to be, it is, just as "Dweller" commented on your own talk page, A THREAT NEVERTHELESS, and I won't ever give in to that sort of behaviour by anyone, especially not you. Extremely sexy 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Bart. Please, note that it is very impolite to edit other people's comments on talk pages. Even if their use of English is mangled and makes no sense. Please, don't do it... there's no need to rile people by continuing to do something when you've been asked not to. Cheers. --Dweller 12:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a point: I am trying. Extremely sexy 13:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've received plenty of warnings; this then is your last. If you change other people's comments again, you'll be blocked from editing with no further warning. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, correct your own spelling mistakes accordingly. Extremely sexy 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In my case you merely removed the correct use of capitals. And it's poor manners, at best, to refer to other people's typing errors (as most of the things you changed clearly were) as "spelling mistakes". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but those couple of corrections regarding capitals were also correct, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite unclear as to whether "User" and "Talk" should be capitalized in the context of referring to Wikipedia users and pages. Certainly it's sufficiently debatable that there's no reason to change them. But all that, as I've said countless times, is completely irrelevant -- whether the grammar is wrong or right, it's still wrong to edit others' comments. I know it's hard, but please try to resist the urge to change things. Read this page [16] -- it has a summary of the important ideas from that book I linked to before. I hope it helps -- I think it would be unfortunate if you got banned, but as Mel's comment shows, it's in severe danger of happening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinball22 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Whoops, sorry about the unsigned -- am on a slow wireless link at a conference and didn't preview. Pinball22 17:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really trying hard not to correct errors. Extremely sexy 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop editing other people's talk page entries

Despite being asked several times, and seemingly agreeing not to, you are still editing others' talk entries. The last two amendments I've seen you do are outright wrong anyway. Please, stop. These talk page comments serve as quotations, and you should not be chaning the content or the context of them, even if you do think the English contained within them is not correct. - fchd 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But which particular edits are you referring to exactly, please? Extremely sexy 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted this ([17]) one. Bart, you're gonna get blocked if you're not careful, which would be a shame. Why can't you just stop it?!? --Dweller 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But in this particular case I only corrected the "He" into "he", since it shouldn't be capitalized at all. Extremely sexy 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

One when you changed "Please provide a source..." to "Please, provide a source" when the first is perfectly OK, another where you changed Wikipedia shortcuts relating to WP:OR and completely changed the meaning of the text, the one above mentioned by Dweller etc. etc. etc. Just leave them alone, please. - fchd 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of you. You're clearly very intelligent, but when everyone tells you something, repeatedly, you still ignore them... and then try to justify yourself.

I'll spell it out. It does not matter if:

• the comment is bad grammar
• it is mis-spelled
• it makes no sense
• it is illogical

leave other's talk page messages alone.

Pretty soon an admin will decide the only way to make you pay attention is by punitive measures. Don't force the issue. You are not right. You are not justified. Stop it, now. --Dweller 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning shot across bows

I've blocked you from editing for six hours for continuing to edit other editors' Talk-page comments despite many requests and warnings. If after this you persist, the next block will be for twenty-four hours, the next for longer still, etc. Please control your urge to fiddle with other editors and use your energy on improving articles. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right: I will try to do so. Extremely sexy 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bart, this MUST stop

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan, you will be blocked from editing.

Above, consolidated into one meta-thread are all (I think) of the many warnings, and some beyond-warnings, you have received for messing with other people's talk posts. You have promised many times to stop (and elsewhere to "try" to stop) editing others' posts. You've already been blocked for it once. You have engaged in extremely longwinded attempts at justifying this disruptive editing and violation of Wiki-etiquette, and even fallen back on a claim of OCD, yet you have been on Wikipedia since 1995 and do not appear to have been engaging in this talk page vandalism (and at this point, yes it is vandalism) since Feb. 2007, so that explanation is not particularly plausible.

Furthermore, I have never seen a user talk page, other than that of a school IP address, so full of complaints and warnings about poor editing judgement, violations of policies and guidelines, and a generally disruptive pattern of editing, which is either met with hostility or seemingly-sarcastic obsequiousness, yet never seems to sink in. I do not understand why you are doing this. You have made plenty of positive contributions. Why are you sabotaging your own participation here?

I feel I don't have any choice but to escalate this to the Admin noticeboard. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Block for disruption

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there could you help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Find_The_Pint They have set up a discusion about keeping it, if you would like you could help to keep it or even just join the discussion Thanks for all your help YellowSnowRecords2 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just voted in favour, but it's hopeless I guess though. Extremely sexy 09:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, they are saying canvased you into it etc ahh well Thanks for supportYellowSnowRecords2 11:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "canvased", huh? Extremely sexy 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus Andiron this fella here thinks that i like forced you to say keep or something gay like that, he also reckons that iam a "Sock puppet" for hugsi lol meh Thanks anyway YellowSnowRecords2 14:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not true, but only the two of us are in favour of keeping it. Extremely sexy 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bystander comment: asking another editor or a few, that you know have been involved in a topic, to weigh in on an AfD, and even asking them to take a specific side is not Wikipedia:Canvassing; the scale is much too small, and the result completely nondisruptive.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan

Please, undo this edit yourself, since they would block me if I would correct your verbal mistake again. Extremely sexy 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to do that as anyone will still be able to understand it. I myself am indifferent to other people altering my comments for style, but other people aren't and you should probably respect that. This business of editing other people's comments is something you appear to have done quite a lot of. Christopher Connor 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, so I'm now very careful indeed as not to be blocked again though. Extremely sexy 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NB: If C.C. wants to fix his own comment, no one would object, of course. I reverted it back to the original since it's up to C.C. to do his own typo fixes. Oh, and Bart, thank you for reverting my deletion of two paragraphs at that same time. I have no idea how that happened. It must have been a slip of the mouse or something while I was editing. The deletion was definitely not intended! Yeesh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: I already asked him on his talkpage, but he doesn't think it's necessary. Extremely sexy 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlo Orelli

Hi Bart. Just so you know, you placed Carlo Orelli in the "Living people" category, a revision that I have reversed, as Mr. Orelli died in 2005. Canadian Paul 20:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so: thanks for spotting my mistake. Extremely sexy 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

Just so you know, full dates need to be in the format DD Month YYYY; please don't change them to read Month DDcomma YYYY or they won't work properly. This is covered at WP:MOSNUM. If they are done properly then the date settings in people's preferences will automatically reformat them for everyone. I.e., some people will get "DDth Month, YYYY", others will get "YYYY-MM-DD, others will get "Month DD, YYYY" etc., as they prefer. If you switch them arond and put commas in, this functionality breaks. A geeky point, I know, but one worth remembering. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's OK to use either [[Month DD]] or [[DD Month]] -- the date preferences will fix it to your chosen format either way. (Both are shown in the explanation at WP:MOSDATE, and I just tested it to be sure.) The comma won't actually break the date formatting either, but it's unnecessary, since it will be automatically added if your date preference is for the "April 27, 2007" style or if you have no date preference set. Pinball22 13:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be darned! Sorry for the false alarm then. Maybe this stuff actually changed on the engineering end since last I read that (which was definitely waaay back when...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really ironical. Extremely sexy 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the various 14 May 2024 and {{euro date}} templates help guarantee that the dates will be formatted properly, as well as automatically computing (and updating) ages and so on. Please refrain from undoing the hard work of other editors in applying the best techniques. Thanks.... (unsigned comment)

However, the "euro date" template is a red link, and I only reverted them because there are problems with them. Extremely sexy 14:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Is that really you in the picture on the German wikipedia? King Lopez ^Contribs 08:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No: on the Dutch wikipedia it is. Extremely sexy 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Remmert

Why the hell, did You undid a revision of mine on the Living national longevity recordholders?? Year 1900 is the last year of the 19. century, not the 1st of the 20., so there are still some german vets from the 19th century alive! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.142.178 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

'If' that's true, this applies for the current oldest Dutch male as well. Extremely sexy 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just the same as the numer 10 is the last number of the 1st tenth and not the 1st of the second tenth. And the Year 2000 is the last year of the 20. millenium, not the first of the 21.

First tenth: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Second tenth: 11,........................20

First millenium: 1,.....................1000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.134.188 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I know that's true, so you are right, but one has to be logical. Extremely sexy 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello, I noticed you made many edits to the article Robert F. Kennedy. Thank you for that, but you did not provide an edit summary. It is good practice to fill in the Edit Summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as it helps everyone to understand what is changed, such as when perusing the history of the page. It's a good idea to set your user preferences (under Edit) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". When editing a page, a small "Summary" field under the main edit-box looks like this:

Thanks - Jeeny 17:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay: you mean all the time? Extremely sexy 18:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, every single one. Even very minor ones, such as "punctuation" or "wiki link", "sp." (for spelling), etc. It really does help. You can read about edit summaries where it says you can use abbreviations. You don't have to provide a detailed explanation, unless it's major. Hope that helps. Thanks. - Jeeny 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So even with spelling corrections as well? Extremely sexy 18:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, EVERY edit you make. Click here. - Jeeny 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. Extremely sexy 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even when you provide a response to talk pages. You did not provide one when you made this comment. Put "comment" in the summary or "response" as in this case. - Jeeny 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought this wasn't necessary for talk pages. Extremely sexy 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(avoiding too many indents) Hi, it is strongly encouraged as it is considered good etiquette and helpful to others, even on talk pages. Thanks. - Jeeny 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing it nevertheless. Extremely sexy 14:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The logs say otherwise. All 24 edits made between your statement above and this comment of mine are lacking edit summaries, other than the automatic indication of a section of the article. Please read the guideliines. You are obviously an intelligent person, and make some worthwhile contributions, but over the last few months you have continually agreed to work within good Wikipedia guidelines, yet as soon as someone else's back is turned, ignored the guidelines and gone back to doing it the same was as before. - fchd 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot this time. Extremely sexy 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bart - it's now over 10 days later, you have made several hundred more edits and virtually none (if any) have an edit summary. I can understand "forgetting" once or twice, but hundreds of times in a row - no way. Please consider again checking the box on your preferences to remind you when you have not provided an edit summary. - fchd 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit I haven't done so after doing it for a day, since I was blocked again and was pissed off: sorry. Extremely sexy 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you are still doing this...

Now you're not only making punctuation adjustments to entries on talk pages, now you're doing it to an AfD debate - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margarethe Zinndorf. How many times do you have to be informed that this is just not acceptable? Please leave other peoples comments alone; you are getting precariously close to a long block and no-one wants to see that. - fchd 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to, but that's rather difficult. Extremely sexy 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not trying very hard then. Even when words like "digitised" are correct, you still feel the need to change them. For the last time, please stop. - fchd 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. Extremely sexy 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot my comment. Extremely sexy 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahaha! Bart, your edits and talk page crack me up. Well done. Christopher Connor 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though. Extremely sexy 23:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Ted Kennedy, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Postoak 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Diff: [18]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Watergate scandal; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Postoak Diff: [19]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Surviving veterans of World War I, you will be blocked for vandalism. Postoak 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Diff: [20]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Surviving veterans of World War I, you will be blocked for vandalism. Postoak 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Diff: [21]

I will request administrator intervention. Postoak 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing references

Hey man, thanks for all the work you do on the Ted Kennedy article. I'm sure you're aware, but I think that the cite templates might make standardization of references a little easier. Cite-web is the easiest to use, however when doing magazines, journals, books, or video I try to use the appropriate template. I know it's not a requirement or anything, but I've always thought the templates make it easier to deal with later. If you want to coordinate efforts to hit the entire article sometime, let me know. /Blaxthos 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though: I'm your man. Extremely sexy 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

TAGGED!!!

Bart, why do you send me messages asking me to be your 'friend' when you almost never support me on Wikipedia? 68.211.77.10 08:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you anyway: Robert Young? Extremely sexy 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bart

It is nice of you to fix other people's spelling on wikipedia articels. Remember, all edits can be viewed on the "Recent Changes" or on the "History" link. So don't try anything sneaky. Have a nice day. Happy editing. King Lopez ^Contribs 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing my utmost. Extremely sexy 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Improper page move

Hi there. This page move by Kepin is not supported by prior discussion. It's been discussed before and the general consensus as I recall was that the article does not theorize, it lists controversies and irregularities. The article has been the subject of an RfAr as well, so a move like this should probably be discussed in the interests of achieving the most objective result. I'd be happy to dig up links to prior discussions on the article's talk page. I see that you have good 'page moves' skills (not my forte), so would you mind lending a hand and moving the page back so interested parties can discuss it? Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will undo his actions, my friend. Extremely sexy 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, and I just did. Extremely sexy 23:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Try archiving your talk page. It is getting hard for other editors to navigate it, because it is too long. If you want to get an idea. Take a look at my Talk Page. Or you can go here Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and it will help you on how to do it. Or I can help you on how to do it. It's just a suggestion and it will make it easier to go thru the page. Thanks. King Lopez ^Contribs 03:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. Extremely sexy 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing other editor's talk page comments, again...

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism.

[22] [23] [24] [25] (the last diff you replaced with another spelling error!) Postoak 03:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What can I do to help you realize that the things people are talking to you about are important? You keep agreeing to stop changing others' talk page comments, and have even gotten blocked for doing so, and still you carry on -- I just looked at the page of your last 500 edits, and you changed comments on talk pages at least fourteen times. Additionally, you've said repeatedly that you'll start using edit summaries, yet of those 500 edits, you left non-automatic edit summaries only seventeen times. I don't want to see you get banned, but I think that's going to happen at some point because you're making people very frustrated. Pinball22 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly did the edit summaries for one day, but then I was blocked again, so I was pissed off: sorry. Extremely sexy 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Block someone

72.16.110.66: this IP is a vandal's or vandal noob's. (unsigned comment)

But I'm not an administrator myself, so I will ask someone who is to take a look at your request, my friend. Extremely sexy 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

Despite a string of requests, and previous blocks, you're still editing other people's Talk-page comments. You're also labelling every edit "minor", although some are clearly more substantial. Combined with your reluctance to use edit summaries, your editing is seen as disruptive by many editors, and it's difficult to disagree with them. Rather than increasing the length of the block I've made it the same length as the last one; I hope that you use the time to rethink how – and what – you edit here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now using edit summaries, but, as I told you twice before, I was really pissed off by your blocks, hence, and now you blocked me again. Extremely sexy 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page - I wasn't accusing you of making an attack, just making sure you knew what you were doing - amending a talk message of an admin who blocked you for making amendments to others talk messages. For all you know it could be a trap to see if you're still as obsessive about changing other people's messages. Please be careful Bart, I wouldn't be surprised if the next time the block is a lot longer. Use some common sense. - fchd 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay: thanks for the warning once again. Extremely sexy 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful: you're still editing other people's comments. Though these are pretty minor, you've been blocked several times for this already, so I urge you to just leave them alone. Phaunt 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to. Extremely sexy 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not good enough for you to repeatedly say you will try to. You don't listen. Edits today to Talk:Martha Graham, Talk:Arlington National Cemetery and User talk:JoJan are all edits to other people's spelling etc. The last one, on the User talk page, wasn't even wrong in the first place for some versions of English. I'm sure I'm not the only one here losing patience with you. You've grasped the point with edit summaries, but time and time again you say you'll leave others' comments alone and a few minutes later you're back at it again. I'm giving up trying to reason with you now, and are just assuming you are a troll until evidence proves otherwise. - fchd 15:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. Recent violations:[26], [27], [28], [29], I will notify the administrator -- Postoak 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bart

I was wondering why you label every edit minor? Correcting this edit was nice of you but other edits are funny like this one As it says on the Wikipedia:Vandalism editing other peoples comments is vandalism. (Unless you are removing a personal attack) But you do a nice job on fixing other peoples spelling which that is a big help. As for me I have to use google to fix my spelling. Keep up the good work Bart. But why are you labeling every edit as a minor edit? King Lopez ^Contribs 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man, and I will too. Extremely sexy 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you've set your preferences that way. Bart, go to 'my preferences'-->'Editing' and uncheck 'Mark all edits minor by default'. After that, make sure you only check the 'minor edit' box when you truly do a WP:MINOR edit. Phaunt 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do this now, my friend. Extremely sexy 12:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you changed your preferences, did you really? You're still tagging nearly all your edits (97 out of your last 100) as minor, and for example these certainly aren't. Phaunt 19:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't and still isn't checked in my preferences at all, though they all are minor edits, aren't they, and I always check this myself first of all. Extremely sexy 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:MINOR? Check those edits again. They're not minor. I'll quote the first paragraph:

"A check to the minor edit box signifies only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

In all three cases I refer to, you've added a comment to a talk page. You would like people to see those (ie review them), wouldn't you? Phaunt 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But they told me I had to comment every revision I did, albeit minor though. Extremely sexy 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have to provide an edit summary, but that's unrelated to the "This is a minor edit" checkbox. Adding any text of your own, or deleting any text for that matter, is generally not considered a minor edit. For edits like those, please make sure that box isn't ticked when saving your edit. Phaunt 19:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. Extremely sexy 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't believe you until you actually do it, as you've often made promises in the past without keeping them. Case in point, you marked the very edit with which you wrote "Understood: I will" as minor. (You didn't provide an edit summary, either.) Please help me believe you :-) Phaunt 19:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So these are never minor, and also always edit summaries on talk pages then? Extremely sexy 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You got it. The summary can be quite brief, for example I've used "reply" a couple of times in this discussion. See Help:Edit summary for more information. There are some abbreviations on WP:ESL and its cheat sheet that you might find interesting, but as is noted there, "Wikipedians are encouraged to write accurate and detailed summaries.". Good luck! :-) Phaunt 20:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Extremely sexy 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Martha Graham

What objections would you have if I moved Martha Graham (dancer), back to Martha Graham? Your original move was done with little, if any consultation. Gareth E Kegg 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did this since there are 2 Martha Graham's, so first look at Martha Graham, please. Extremely sexy 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Martha Graham (dancer)#Requested MoveGareth E Kegg 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will, but when there are several (= at least two) persons with the same name, the article with the name should be a "disambiguation" page. Extremely sexy 18:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFK

Hi Bart,

I've been the main editor/contributor on the RFK page for several years now. I'm just writing to thank you for your efforts and to ask that you continue to be vigilant concerning 'useless' editors who contribute nothing other than the removal of longstanding material and/or criticism of what is in fact a very good article.

Best regards,

Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlondon (talk • contribs)

It's my pleasure though, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ewen

Bart, please quit thinking you know more about English grammar than I do. You are wrong. Quit the vandalism.R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm right though: no vandalism at all. Extremely sexy 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Block

It's difficult to believe that you're still doing this... If no-one objected, perhaps it wouldn't matter — but they do object, and still you edit their Talk-page comments. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Extremely Sexy

Yo dude? Got to ask you for a favor. Please do not edit other peoples comments. It is very disturbing to other editors. You want to keep your editing privileges don't you? Please edit responsibly my friend. Thanks. King Lopez ^Contribs 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: okay then. Extremely sexy 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a archive box to your talk page. All you have to do is highlight,cut and paste it on the link above. I am just helping you out here. King Lopez ^Contribs 08:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. Extremely sexy 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATE

It's a trivial point, but as somebody has tidied up in the context of WP:DATE then you can't really undo it against Wikipedia rules. The dates of an event is a preferrential thing, the birth/death date of somebody is covered though as date month year, and a living person has a born date of born month day year. So Emiliano Del Toro needs to be reverted to the "correct" edit. Mind you I am saying it's a trivial, trivial point all things considered. RichyBoy 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the date wikifications: that's all there is to it. Extremely sexy 01:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

William F. "Bill" Cotton

William F. "Bill" Cotton's son by the same name (who was known as Fred) did NOT serve in the U.S. Army and was not wounded in the Battle of the Bulge. (Fred was born March 25, 1930, and he died March 28, 1998.) The statement about his son should be deleted because it is not true. I would be interested to know the source of your information about William F. Cotton, Jr. Jhkobelski 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well: don't look at me, because I didn't put it in there in the first place at all. Extremely sexy 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request comment

Please comment on Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination#Strange undoings as I don't see why you would revert my edits. You may be right in doing so, but since they weren't vandalism or any such thing, a bit of rationale behind it would be nice. Lilac Soul 23:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There really hasn't been reverted anything at all. Extremely sexy 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, on second thoughts, I thought you meant at the talk page, but you must mean this revert by me: well, no date wikifications for separate years. Extremely sexy 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point me to Wikipedia's policy on that, as I have never heard of that before. As I see it, Wikipedia is full of such wikifications. But perhaps we should have this discussion on the article's talk page?Lilac Soul 06:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest then. Extremely sexy 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bart Versieck

I am just curious which country you live in Bart? Do you live in the United States or somewhere in Europe? King Lopez ^Contribs 08:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the latter: in Flanders namely, which is the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Extremely sexy 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No: thank you. Extremely sexy 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! BTW, thanks for the support on the (silly) MFD.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure: it was indeed silly. Extremely sexy 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Writer beware

Like entries on similar organizations, such as Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Local Church and its headquarters, the Living Stream Ministry. Try it.

What darkness fears most is the bright light of day.

In other words, you are the same type as the scientologists. You are biased in your 'anti-cult' mantra, looking to run other people's lives and thoughts...sounds cultic to me.Ryoung122 02:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Beware, the above citation is not mine. Extremely sexy 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming 'Melchizedek priesthood' to 'Mechizedek Priesthood (mormonism)'

Bart: do you know how to rename a page, or someone who does? Thanks.Ryoung122 05:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can, and I will. Extremely sexy 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you guys caused quite a tangle there. Please ask before trying any such things again. I have fixed it all up now: it can be left. Charles Matthews 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I only did what he asked me to do, and I don't know why he wanted this to happen, so ask him about it, please. Extremely sexy 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If it had been correct in the first place, none of this would have happened.Ryoung122 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell him this, not me, man. Extremely sexy 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming L. Stephen Coles

Bart, I'm extremely incensed that you choose to edit/destroy every article I choose. Stop 'following me' around the internet. Dr. Coles's name 'Stephen' is a middle name, and I felt the name of the article as 'L. Stephen Coles' was correct.Ryoung122 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do what I like, and you of all people definitely won't stop me, secondly, he calls himself Stephen, and finally, the article titles of persons at "Wikipedia" are just like I corrected yours, meaning with one name, not two, let alone an abbreviation, so quit the name calling once again (last time of asking), because you are the destroyer, not me. Extremely sexy 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Susie Gibson

Was WHITE, not AFRICAN-AMERICAN.Ryoung122 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay: one mistake (big deal). Extremely sexy 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Racist?

Bart: quit running around tagging everyone by RACE!Ryoung122 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you accuse me of being racist, man: simply look at the facts => those categories simply do exist and are being used by lots of editors for lots of people, so they are all racist in your pathetic opinion, or what (just get a life)? Extremely sexy 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deal?

Ok, Bart, so how do you rename a 'named' article...i.e. Louis Epstein to Louis Epstein (jeans)?Ryoung122 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't help you anymore if you won't stop your EGOCENTRIC BEHAVIOUR and NAME CALLING (not only towards me, mind you). Extremely sexy 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bart, you continue to call me names, and many of these issues you have started yourself (such as editing the discussion comments of others). Is it too much to admit fault to anything?

Also, if you want war, I can:

A. Withhold the 400+ USA cases I now have that no one else does

B. Ban you from the World's Oldest People webgroup

So, do you want a scorched-Earth or do you want to calm down? Do you not realize that you started it, not I? Was I on the GRG first? Yes. Did I ask you to join? No. Did you 'volunteer' to edit and change virtually everything I do? Yes. Personally, the side does not say to the thorn, I apologize for not wanting to be poked by you. No, the side wants the thorn plucked out and discarded with.Ryoung122 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't call names at all, and just follow your "fantastic example" of discussing: I did not start this war, which you apparently just want to continue at any cost. Extremely sexy 23:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

About moving pages...

(I made this a separate heading to keep it out of the argument.) To rename a page, use the Move tab up at the top next to the History tab. Please be careful about this, though, and read WP:MOVE for more details about the process. Never cut and paste to move, as this causes problems with history and the GFDL. If a move is likely to be controversial or require administrator intervention (such as when the target already exists), go to requested moves for discussion or assistance. Pinball22 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Living national longevity recordholders

Hi Bart, I added that template, thinking about Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly as it seems to me that these current ages are by definition going to be out of date as soon as they're written. Using a template seems to me a neat way of dynamically keeping the page up to date. I'm not about to go to war over this as I don't necessarily like the appearance of the way I added the text, but I am interested in your comments. Cheers. —Moondyne 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look in due course. Extremely sexy 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well: I deleted it, because either you put it there for everyone (a hell of a task, but anyway), or for nobody. Extremely sexy 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Why, might I ask, are you reverting all comments to Clown Will Eat Me's insomnia section? the_undertow ^talk 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I came to ask the same thing. While many times non-self edits to User: namespace pages really are vandalism, please be certain of it before reverting in the future by checking the revision's diff, as well as the actual content of the page. Cheers. =) --slakr 09:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually not all the comments, but I considered those particularly to be vandalism, since they were that strange and on a userpage. Extremely sexy 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the user page? There is a button that invites 'insomniacs' to add their commentary directly on the userpage. It is unusual, but Jimbo Wales is another example of a user who allows editing to his user page. 'Strange' is subjective, as I do not think you actually read the existing comments, which are 'strange' as well. It was most certainly not vandalism, although I assume you were just looking out for the user. AGF right? the_undertow ^talk 05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No: I actually did read them, but I thought they were meant for his talkpage rather than his userpage, my friend. Extremely sexy 09:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Undent. It's cool. the_undertow ^talk

Can you elaborate on that, huh? Extremely sexy 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part? The 'undent' was just me bringing the conversation physically back to the left margin. Me saying 'it's cool' is just my way of saying that I understand why you made the reversions and everything is copesetic. the_undertow ^talk 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this last word mean though? Extremely sexy 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It means 'completely satisfactory.' the_undertow ^talk 02:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lovely: that's great. Extremely sexy 02:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I definitely will then. Extremely sexy 01:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Most ancient common ancestor

An article that you have been involved in editing, Most ancient common ancestor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor. Thank you.

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy 13:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD: Most ancient common ancestor

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor

By my count, the votes were:

keep: 1 merge: 1 revert and merge: 1 delete and redirect: 1 delete or redirect: 1 delete, weak delete, or strong delete: 9

That's 3 for keep or some flavor of merge, 2 for redirect and/or redirect, and 9 for pure delete 9 of 14 is 64%. 11 of 14 is 78%. Either way, it's a consensus. I am not the deleting admin. Heck, I'm not even an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bart, I am going to try this again, because clearly the article got railroaded without understanding. Note, for example:

[PDF] HIV-1 in Ethiopia: Phylogenetic divergence from other HIV-1 strainsFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat The root of the trees (the most ancient common ancestor) was sought by including a distant outgroup in the analysis. This outgroup consisted of a HIV-2 ... www.springerlink.com/index/R1275224N28053J2.pdf - Similar pages

This is a scientific use, and the use is the opposite of 'most recent common ancestor.' 131.96.70.164 03:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But I thought the voting after the opinions counted, and this was definitely a stalemate. Extremely sexy 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Ramsey Wood

Greetings,

Someone started THIS article:

Mary Ramsey Wood

And despite solid evidence that this case is a fraud, they have reacted quite negatively. Thus I need some support for age verification.

Thanks. Ryoung122 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to help wherever I can. Extremely sexy 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Post something on the message board explaining why the age is not believable.

Also of note: someone removed John Ross from the 'living national longevity recordholders' page. I'm kind of on the fence, I think that by age 108 you could 'assume' he is the oldest, but we don't know that for a fact.Ryoung122 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They deleted his entry, since my reference doesn't literally say that he's the oldest Australian man currently. Extremely sexy 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Biel

Apologies for overreacting. I seem to have a short fuse. Ref added. Women hate me 03:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all though: apologies accepted. Extremely sexy 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Bart, let me know if you think I should have an article on Wikipedia, or not.

See Robert Young (gerontologist) for more. Ryoung122 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I voted for a very strong keep indeed, but when exactly will this AfD be resolved, Robert? Extremely sexy 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, dear friend. Extremely sexy 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical infoboxes

Please, do not remove the underscore in musical infoboxes (solo_singer vs. solo singer). It is required for the template to recognize what sort of formatting to use for the box. Thanks, Canadian Paul 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but in both cases this particular bit of information doesn't show up in the article itself at all I noticed: very strange? Extremely sexy 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not meant to show up, it's an invisible parameter whose sole purpose is to determine that background colouring of the infobox. I guess you're supposed to infer the information from other parts of the infobox or something. That sounds more sarcastic and rude than I mean to, so apologies, it's just early here. Oh, and while I'm here "–" is the proper way to indicate a span of dates. "-" is a hyphen ala "Jean-Claude." Canadian Paul 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul. Extremely sexy 14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming articles/categories

Bart, do you know how to rename articles? Given the precedent of changing Robert Young (gerontologist) to "Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) I suggest the renaming of Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker) to Louis Epstein (longevity claims researcher), and a renaming of the category...or not?

'Supercentenarian tracker' is the term used by Jean-Marie Robine, but he is French so his English word construction may not be the first way an English person would use the term.

Thanks! Robert Young Ryoung122 07:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we already have a conversation about renaming pages recently? Anyway, renaming is accomplished by moving. In this case, the target page probably doesn't exist, so you should be able to do it yourself; in a case where the target page already exists, check out WP:RM for requesting a move. Once you've moved the page, you'll be given a link to check for double redirects; be sure to do that and change any pages linking to the old name to link to the new one. If any of this doesn't make sense, just reply here and I'll be happy to help. Pinball22 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear, not? Extremely sexy 14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject really old people

Don't know if it's been said before, but you guys should really form a wikiproject for septacentu...whatevers. There's so many bios and lists that it seems natural. The bios could certainly use an infobox for a "World's Oldest Living Person" title (just as Wayne Gretzky and athletes have "Hall of Fame" at the bottom of theirs. An infobox could also be the place to indicate length of reign, etc. Canuckle 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but that's definitely a very good idea, and I would support it, but there are already several such infoboxes though. Extremely sexy 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Marie-Louise L'Huillier

Please note that the correct spelling of her name, per GRG, is Marie-Louise L'Huillier, WITH the apostrophe. Cheers, CP 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I've explained before "–" is the correct way to format a dash as in Yakup Satar. - is a hyphen as in "Marie-Louise." Also, in the military infobox template, "– present" is not used. Cheers, CP 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it with regards to the latter statement, but I do happen to know (from Laurent Toussaint) it's "Lhuillier". Extremely sexy 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I don't think so...Ryoung122 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm 100 certain: just ask him now. Extremely sexy 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bart, first of all, please do not undo any non-vandalism edit without AT LEAST an explanation in your edit summary. It is preferable to discuss your changes on the talk page before you do it as well. Second of all, a person can fall into more than one national centenarian category. Babcock is both an American and Canadian citizen. He is also a centenarian. Therefore he is both an American and Canadian centenarian. Thirdly, if you are going to perform style edits, it is helpful to point to the part of policy or style manual that explains your changes. (For example, when I remove places of birth from lifespan brackets, I always include a mention of WP:DATE in my edit summaries) Otherwise, editors may become upset with your changes, especially when stylistic changes without a proper style backing override other, perhaps more important, edits that show up on a person's watchlist. Cheers, CP 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, I disagree with your 'place of birth' removals. Many major sources from the Encyclopedia Britannica on town include 'place of birth' at or near the top of the page, with the birth/death dates.Ryoung122 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but the whole point is in fact that he fought as a Canadian and turned 100 as an American, which he still is: to me this is just plain logic. Extremely sexy 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:I do not know how to explain this to you. You say "he is an American centenarian: he really isn't a Canadian anymore." He is still a Canadian citizen. He still considers himself Canadian. He was still born in Canada. How you can possibly say that he is not a Canadian given that the entire reason he is notable is that he is that last CANADIAN veteran? I am not saying that he is not an American one, I'm merely saying that he is a Canadian one too. I cannot revert it anymore due to the three revert rule but I do still require an explanation of how he is not Canadian. I haven't lived in Canada for a long time too, that doesn't mean I'm not Canadian. Cheers, CP 22:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved on Mr. Young's talk page. Cheers, CP 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In America, America does not recognize 'dual citizenship'...some countries do. In any case, if he were born in America he'd still be notable, although not as much. However, the issue here is that, EVEN if he is not "Canadian" now, he was at one point in time. On the other hand, he was a 'Canadian veteran' but not really a "Canadian centenarian"...he turned 100 in the USA.Ryoung122 23:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Edna Parker

Bart, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU INSIST ON REMOVING EXACT DATES. LOOK, EMMA TILLMAN WAS THE 'WORLD'S OLDEST PERSON' FOR FOUR DAYS. THE EXACT DATE MATTERS. SO, WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE DATE CORINNE DIXON TAYLOR DIED FROM THE EDNA PARKER ARTICLE---AGAIN???? Ryoung122 23:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did not: check your facts, and quit the capitals as well then. Extremely sexy 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Ryoung122

Not intentionally it was. Extremely sexy 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming an article

Bart, I want to rename this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of last living survivors by year of birth

to 'list of oldest living person by year of birth.' I believe that 'oldest' should take precedence over 'last'..., because 'last' is biased in favor of those born later in the year, which makes for an unscientific list. Ryoung122 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I will help you. Extremely sexy 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But you already changed it into something else, being oldest validated person by year of birth: why is that? Extremely sexy 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Email sent

Email is sent, if you didn't receive it let me know. RichyBoy 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it: thanks. Extremely sexy 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgian living national longevity recordholders

Wow, you got that information fast! I applaud not only the quality of those entries, but the speed at which they were brought up! Good to see some proper references on that page too! Cheers, CP 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gladys Swetland

Bart, I've said enough in this debate. Time for someone else:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_Swetland

I notice you haven't voted yet. I'm not going to fight this fight alone. If Gladys goes, you can expect over 50 other super-c articles to go as well.Ryoung122 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay: I've fixed the article even more. Extremely sexy 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop editing other people's comments

Bart - you're at it again. Please don't edit other peoples talk comments, even if you think there are spelling mistakes. - fchd 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfffff: there definitely are though, man. Extremely sexy 15:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion...

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion about you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Pinball22 18:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well: I wasn't, so thanks for telling me about this. Extremely sexy 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATE

Please read and familiarize yourself with the style guidelines presented in WP:DATE. Specifically, places of birth are death are to be left OUT of the person's lifespan brackets. As part of the Manual of Style, this format is not optional. Thank you and Cheers, CP 04:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to point me to with your edit summary (the link is broken) but if you fail to respect WP Guidelines and Policies to suit your own style preferences, your edits will be construed as vandalism and will be reported as such, along with your continually ignoring of editors who have asked you respectfully not to edit their comments. Cheers, CP 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all: it can't be put completely in it, so here it is. Extremely sexy 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with not putting dates in lifespan brackets, but since you seem that you would rather get into an edit war and you feel the need to be disrespectful to people who have asked you not to edit comments (see below) and since I'd be violating the 3RR by reverting your changes again, I have no choice but to report your behavior. Cheers, CP 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. It violates WP:DATE, so enough with the edit-warring. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd: that's not a general rule, but only a guideline in my humble opinion. Extremely sexy 22:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We see that user Canadian Paul has made '4577' edits (106 deletions or 2.31%),

Contributions summary for: Canadian Paul Username Canadian Paul Total edits 4577 Image uploads 22 (20 cur, 2 old) Distinct pages edited 2501 Edits/page (avg) 1.83 Deleted edits 106 (browse) First edit 2005-01-23 06:53:32 Edits by namespace Namespace Edits Articles 3337 Talk 787 User 201 User talk 114 Project 86 Project talk 3 Image 27 Template 11 Template talk 5 Category talk 5 enwiki_p: Portal talk 1

While Bart Versieck has made 14,006 edits (with 252 deletions or 1.79%). Please note the WP: DATE is a 'guideline' not the Supreme Court. We should be respectful of long-time users and we may find that those who thought they had made more contributions actually haven't. Ryoung122 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, this is the wrong place for this discussion. It has been moved to Ryoung122's page. For historical evidence of my rudeness (that I fully apologize for and will do so properly on Ryoung122's page), I shall preserve it here. Cheers, CP 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Paul, once again you are taking things 'out of context.' I am not here to 'disparage' you; I'm here to support Bart in what I feel is an injustice. It SHOULD be needless to say that there are many times when Mr. Versieck and myself have NOT agreed on many things. So, this isn't about bullying, building alliances, or the like. It's about pointing out what is fair and how others wish to be treated. I note your comments:

I have no idea what that has to do with not putting dates in lifespan brackets, but since you seem that you would rather get into an edit war and you feel the need to be disrespectful to people who have asked you not to edit comments (see below) and since I'd be violating the 3RR by reverting your changes again, I have no choice but to report your behavior.

The above comment is extremely negative yet craftily assumes that Bart would rather engage in an edit war. By answering your own question, you leave no room for Bart (or Person B) to interpret your comments otherwise. You also decide on the 'punishment': "I have no choice but to report your behavior" prematurely. You actually had SEVERAL choices: you could have discussed what issues you disagree with FIRST. You could have waited until a day or two and calmed down. Yet you chose to force the issue, again.

For further commentary, I agree this is not the place for that. So, I will grudglingly attempt one 'last' message to you. Ryoung122 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you two can settle this dispute. Extremely sexy 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

Why did you make this reversion? There was a discussion on the discussion page about it, what are your reasons for making the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaFiend (talk • contribs) 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at this reversion afterwards as well though. Extremely sexy 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, saw that and commented on the talk page: thanks! I'm glad you put back in the "birth-date", but what about the other changes? I've added back in the other changes, and left a comment in the talk page in case it needs to be more fully discussed. BananaFiend 09:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What other changes do you mean exactly? Extremely sexy 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Bart. I am finished with the design of your userpage. As you requested by E-mail. You can view the design in my sandbox I blend in the colors with different types of reds as you requested. If you like the design I can paste it on your userpage. Let me know what you think? King Lopez ^Contribs 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great, but meanwhile Robert has added something else under the "Barnstar reward" for me as well. Extremely sexy 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok now see it King Lopez ^Contribs 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes: thank you very much indeed then. Extremely sexy 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Grand Slam champions

Bart, just one person, Fyunclick, insists that pre-1925 French 'Open' tennis champions shouldn't count (even though the early Wimbledon and USA tournaments weren't 'open' to international competitors, and ironically the very first French 'championship' in 1891 was won by a British man). Many non-Wikipedia sources from Ask.com to the Encyclopedia Britannica list the pre-1925 French champions, but Fyunclick has been 'owning' the web pages. Care to comment? Ryoung122 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But where exactly is the article I need to comment on? Extremely sexy 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Such as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Grand_Slam_Women%27s_Singles_champions

Note the links on the main page to the men's article as well. Ryoung122 03:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look in due course. Extremely sexy 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk - List of living supercentenarians

Bart - please do not reinsert my comments after I deleted them. It was only there for a matter of minutes before I discovered that the person in question actually removed the word "currently" in accordance with my suggestion. Alan Davidson 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did it for the sake of correct archiving: comments are not to be deleted. Extremely sexy 14:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bart, there are several examples of comments deleted for a wide range of reasons. I have done so on this page myself with other comments - and they have not been put back in place. My comments were there for a few minutes only. I discovered that the person making the previous comments had in fact rectified the point we were discussing, so they should not be there at all. Please, do not reinsert. Alan Davidson 00:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, if you insist, man. Extremely sexy 01:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Design

Hi Bart. Sorry this took so long. I took a break for a little while. Anyways I hope you like the design. I hope it is not too bright but you wanted the color red. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No: it's just great, and thanks for taking your time for this, man. Extremely sexy 15:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercentenarian label

Bart, if someone is noted for being the 'oldest,' then that's what they're known for. It doesn't matter if they are 109 or 111, or a 'supercentenarian' or not. They are known for, firstly, being the 'oldest'. We don't need to over-tag and over-label people.Ryoung122 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's in every article on a supercentenarian. Extremely sexy 02:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Drinking games

Are games still left lowercase even if they're proper nouns? hmwith talk 23:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a good example? Extremely sexy 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Small fix"

? — Dorftrottel⁠, was: AldeBaer 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Re:" is superfluous, just like here, by the way, my friend. Extremely sexy 13:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's superfluous or not, please remember that it's still inappropriate to change others' comments on talk pages, Bart. Pinball22 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay then: sorry. Extremely sexy 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

References, external links, etc.

Please note that there is a consensus that the plural form of the "optional sections" is to be used at all times, even if there's only one reference or external link. You have now been informed of this consensus. Cheers, CP 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange, but okay. Extremely sexy 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, please, do not touch anything on my talk page that you did not write. I respect other people enough not to edit their comments on my talk page. You're free to do as you wish with your own talk page, but leave mine alone, please. Cheers, CP 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Right: that's understood. Extremely sexy 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ranking

As of Sept 12, 2007 you ranked as the 1083rd most-frequent contributor to Wikipedia, with 14,137 edits. This is the correct version before people began removing their names:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest&oldid=158820643

By the way, I was at 5892 edits (3,209th place), so I'm nowhere near you! But I'm still ahead of a few other competitors...Rye1967 with 5,216 edits...Ryoung122 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy 11:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments on talk pages

Again, for what seems like the tenth time, Bart - you do not have the right to edit the comments of others on talk pages. It doesn't matter if you don't like the spelling, or the punctuation or whatever - just leave it! I believe you have already been blocked at least once for this. I know what you will say, that you understand and will take it on board, but please actually take heed this time, OK? - fchd 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to. Extremely sexy 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Please, may you answer me a question? It's something that's always intrigued me - why do you edit CSCWEM's userspace so much!? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well: he is a very nice administrator. Extremely sexy 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Very nice indeed, but why have you chosen him?! Is this because you can't sleep!? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but I have a nice relationship with him, Ryan. Extremely sexy 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, very interesting. I'm even more intrigued now! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you really? Extremely sexy 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Very very intrigued, is it a real life "nice relationship"? Ryan Postlethwaite 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Who knows that? Extremely sexy 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Be nice to Bart! Hey Bart. Just one question. Why did you undo my edit on the Jessica Biel article? It means the same thing anyways. I was just making it shorter. King Lopez ^Contribs 10:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well: that's just because USA is a redirect page to United States, my friend. Extremely sexy 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam Bouska

Hi Bart, perhaps you'd like to see whose name is on the credits for this page here (i.e. read the article and then see at the bottom of the page):

http://www.connex247.com/bscenes/adam.php

Ryoung122 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's you: congratulations. Extremely sexy 18:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Living=no

Notice that I have been shown differently and thus am learning from my mistakes. You've been blocked a half-dozen times and promised hundreds of times to not edit people's comments, and you do anyways. I can be honest about my mistakes and learn. You, apparentely, refuse to. And you revert bot edits all the time, so what are you even getting on about? Cheers, CP 21:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked you in a friendly way whether you could have been wrong nevertheless, and this is your unfriendly reply (I definitely prefer Robert's): may I remind you of the fact that you were sure it wasn't a policy at all, robots or not? Extremely sexy 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To steal a line from Robert Young is this (a robot is readding them per "AWB", starting here, so it is policy after all, is it not, huh?) is your idea of a friendly way, then I'd hate to see your uncivil way. Stop making false promises and I will show you due courtesy. Cheers, CP 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were a reasonable guy, but I was wrong. Extremely sexy 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am, but I ignore all rules when people are dishonest to me — I've been hurt by it too many times to let it just slide. People ask you to stop editing their comments, you promise not to, and yet you continue to do so. That's dishonest. Plain and simple, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Dishonesty is the most uncivil thing on Wikipedia, and this project is far better without it. Cheers, CP 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dishonesty is when one lies all the time f.e., but that isn't the case, and ignoring all rules is far worse. Extremely sexy 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Adler Greenberg

Bart, why has no one created an article and added an obit to the 2007 deaths? Can you do this? Ryoung122 23:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well: they are just waiting for you to do this, I suppose, but I will try then. Extremely sexy 21:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: Supercentenarian trackers

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercentenarian trackers Despite the fact that such a category provides a positive rationale for organizing similar articles, it seems that others have nothing better to do with their time than to tear down material that is 'useful to persons on Wikipedia.'

Comments welcome here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers

Ryoung122 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. Extremely sexy 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rafael Verga

Hello Bart! I see you recently (about two weeks ago) reverted multiple edits by an IP address which removed the tag line to the external link, see here. Thank you for doing that, they must've wanted someone to get into something they hadn't been warned about! Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 18:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well: it's my pleasure, dear friend. Extremely sexy 16:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Henderson

Hi there, Bart! I guess you're online right now. How about this birthplace in Shropshire for Roy Henderson? All my references say Edinburgh. Can you source the statement that he was born in Shropshire? Cheers, Eebahgum 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find out right now. Extremely sexy 20:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bart. That's good. Eebahgum 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though. Extremely sexy 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Link style

Hi there. I was just curious about why you reverted my edit (itself a reversion of one of your edits, which broke a link). Moreover, why add all those extra newlines after headers, and separate the DEFAULTSORT from the categories? Per the MoS, extra spacing should be handled by style sheets, not extra newlines in the text (in that same article, you used to make edits that way). And it makes more sense (to me) to attach DEFAULTSORT as closely as possible to categories, since it directly affects their operation.

Irrespective of our style differences, what's your objection to linking like so: Campbellville, Ontario? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindmatrix (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well: Campbellville, Ontario already links to the place itself, that's why, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable

Bart, please wait until deaths are posted on a third-party website before updating. To do otherwise is to violate Wikipedia's 'original research' policy. Ryoung122 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but won't you put it on your own site soon, in order for me to be able to refer to? Extremely sexy 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be asked...

...to not edit other people's talk page comments. This is getting tiresome. I must have asked you half a dozen times over the last 12 months, and others have done the same. You have already served at least one block for this, and you continue to do so. I won't personally ask for another block, but if you continue your behaviour, someone else is bound to do so. You're too good a contributor to let this affect you, so once again I ask you to please, please, stop! - fchd 12:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Bart Versieck)

Hello, Bart Versieck. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bart Versieck, where you may want to participate.

-- h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just answered over here then: check. Extremely sexy 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bart

I added an edit-counter userbox to your page, tell me if you like it. Ryoung122 09:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the userbox. King Lopez ^Contribs 10:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Extremely sexy 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Hi, i have left my concern at Talk:Charlotte Hughes (supercentenarian). Simply south 20:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then: I will have a look. Extremely sexy 20:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ANI comment

Hi Bart, I just thought I'd draw your attention to noticeboard/Incidents&diff=170822183&oldid=170821833 my reply to your comment at WP:ANI.

I checked about half of the supercentenarians articles and found that about half of those had serious deficiencies. There may be more substantial coverage available for for some of them, and some of them may be capable of expansion, but far too many are under-referenced. I suggest that the best thing to with these articles is that unless they clearly meet WP:BIO, they should be merged into the appropriate list articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well: I reacted once more over here. Extremely sexy 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bart, if you really think that a closed yahoogroups mailing list is a reliable source, then please urgently take some time to read WP:V and WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But what about the Gerontology Reseach Group? Extremely sexy 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that nearly everything written in the wikipedia article about the group by its researcher Robert Young turns out on inspection to be a mixture of hype and untruths, I would say that the Gerontology Research Group is about as reliable as rain in the desert. In other words, somewhere near zero. There's probably some truth in there amongst its work, but when a source's lead researcher has engaged in so much distortion, the source loses credibility, because nobody can know which of the GRG's listed are the result of Young's exaggerations, an which aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CSCWEM's user page

He has said his userpage is open to editing. I may remove comments I made myself if I wish, and to wordlessly undo that is inappropriate and ill advised. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed you wrote them yourself though. Extremely sexy 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, now that you know, why did you revert again? Let me make this clear, if you re-revert, I will block you for edit warring. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles Kuentz page: temperature conversion

Please stop altering the temperature conversion on the Charles Kuentz page. Minus 40 degrees C = minus 40 degrees F, not minus 104 degrees F! I think you are confusing it with +40C which does equal +104F. 143.252.80.100 13:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. Extremely sexy 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Bart, please stop tagging as {{unreferenced}} articles which do have references, such as Patrick Kinane. All the articles you have tagged are referebced with at least one source, as follows: This page incorporates information from the Oireachtas Members Database.

I will remove the tags which have been applied to referenced articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But you did this yourself too right here. Extremely sexy 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You also tagged, for example, Denis Allen with {{refimprove}}. Every fact in that article is from the listed sources. Tagging without reading the articles and checking the sources is disruptive: please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely: only one source = not enough. Extremely sexy 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct about Godfrey Timmins: that article contains a lengthy biography without sources to back up most of it. The question is whether the facts in the article are supported by the references, in the case of Godfrey Timmins] they aren't. In the case of Denis Allen and others they are backed up by the sources.

The problem here is that you are following Robert Young's campaign to disrupt, and tagging articles without checking what you are doing by reading the articles and the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't deny that you specificially have been tagging all the article about supercentenarians, which is just acting like it is a war. Extremely sexy 20:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bart, I'm glad that you have acknowledged that you are warring, and I suggest that you stop before you find yourself in trouble.

I have no problem with you tagging as unreferenced articles which are unreferenced, and in fact I'd encourage you to do so, to identify articles which need improvement. The problem is that you are applying tags to articles which don't have the problems which the tags aim to fix, and you are as you say doing this because you think there is a "war" and because your friend Robert has suggested that you do this.

Now, are you going to remove the unreferenced tags which you added to articles which are referenced? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not my "friend" at all, but I have known him for years now and you still haven't told me why you specifically tagged all those articles mentioned by me before? Extremely sexy 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points here:

1. You have not asked me about any of the articles I tagged. I'm happy to discuss any of them, but first, please will you remove {{unreferenced}} tags from articles which are referenced and {{refimprove}} tags from articles which are fully sourced? I'll give you a list in a few minutes
2. OK, maybe Young is your longstanding acquaintance rather than friend, but you are now engaged in assisting him to evade a block by performing edits which he asked you to do. This can earn you a block on its own, even if the edits themselves are productive.
3. Now, if you have specific concerns about any article I tagged, I'd be happy to discuss it. I went through those articles because it became clear to me that the editors working in the field didn't understand the notability guidelines, and continued when it became clear that there were many other problems, such as linkspam to www.grg.org or to Robert Young's mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Gerontology Research Group and "WOP" are reliable sources though, but is it true that you had a 110-year-old ancestor? Extremely sexy 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, if you still claim that a yahoogroup is a reliable source, I can only say that you clearly have not read WP:RS. As to GRG, the research which has led me to nominate it at AfD also shows that it doesn't meet WP:RS: the GRG is nothing more than a website run by a informal and ad-hoc group of collaborators in academic and related ventures.

I am not Robert Douglas Young though: I'm flattered right now. Extremely sexy 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, I note that you haven't raised any questions about any of the articles which I tagged, and nor have you replied to my request to fix the inappropriate tags you added. Since you don't want to discuss these points, I have to conclude that you are indeed just engaged in disruption at the behest of a blocked user, and that there is no point in replying to you. If you do actually want to discuss things, let me know. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But you said you would send me a list, and what about my question concerning that relative of yours: no answer? Extremely sexy 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss my family. List below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert added you as a member of his yahoo group, since you told him this, and I am not here to fight a war, no. Extremely sexy 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been banned from Robert's yahoogroup, but luckily there are lots of decent people who don't hold with his campaign of disruption and forward the relevant emails to me, so I know what's happening. As you know, the email I posted to the AfD was only one of many. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Bart, your AfD nominaton of James Craig (Irish Professor) omitted the last two steps, which are set out in the AfD notice which you placed in the article: you omitted to list the article on the day's AfD log (which is the main way that editors can find it), and you omitted to notify the article's creator.

Also, it's not helpful to move an article while an AfD is underway, because it breaks links. I think the move was a good idea, but it should be left until the AfD is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that then: I will afterwards. Extremely sexy 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Craig (Irish Professor). There clearly is consensus to keep the article. Additionally, it seems plainly obvious that the nomination was a WP:POINT violation; please, do not disrupt Wikipedia further. — Scientizzle 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No: I thought every article needed references. Extremely sexy 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gerontology Research Group

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gerontology Research Group, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerontology Research Group. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

James Craig AFD, answer to a question

In response to your question to Smashville, you told me - twice, no less - that I am supposed to vote on the merits of the article rather than the merits of the nominator (in this case, you). Just sayin' - since you asked, I thought I would do you the courtesy of an answer. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis but the first time was meant for another user, and I did not tell you how to vote, or did I? Extremely sexy 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Bart I have blocked you for 48 hours for your disruptive editing and blatant violation of WP:POINT. Stalking BrownHairedGirl and placing uncessary tags on her contributions is not the way we work here as you should know. Playing petty vendetta's because your friend has been blocked for his own disruptive editing will give you a first class ticket to nowhere. Have a short break to calm down, and when you come back get back on board as a useful editor.

I also removed the red background to this talk page as it is hard to read for visually impaired people. If you choose to put it back, that's fine but be aware that it is annoying for some. —Moondyne 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to the ANI discussion leading to this block: [30]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A word of warning - editing by proxy for a banned editor will see you blocked indefinitely if it continues. Neil ☎ 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I really haven't done anything of the sort: any explanation, please, Neil? -- Extremely sexy (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You nominated James Craig (Irish professor) at AfD and incorrectly tagged a series of articles precisely as Robert Young had asked in the email which I posted to the AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought he meant that I was still editing as an anonymous user while being banned from editing, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing list

Bart

I am still engaged in a long process of tidying up after the disruptive edits you did today at the request of the blocked User:Ryoung122, who is using his yahoogroups mailing lists to try to co-ordinate meatpuppets to disrupt wikipedia, and who asked you and others to engage in precisely this course of disruption (as per the email from Robert which I posted to the AfD).

As you know, I enthusuastically apply {{unreferenced}} tags etc to aricles in need of improvement, and I welcome them being applied to articles which I have edited if the tags actually reflect deficiencies in the articles. Unfortunately, in working off Robert Young's target list, you didn't check, so here is some of the mischief I have fixed:

• William O'Donnell -- tagged as unreferenced, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Liam Hyland -- tagged as unreferenced, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Patrick Kinane -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Mary Ryan (Irish politician) -- tagged as refimprove, but had three refs covering all facts in the article
• John Philip Bagwell, tagged as unreferenced, but had one ref
• Martin Brennan (Irish politician) -- you added an expand tag, which was superfluous because it was alreday tagged as a stub
• Jim Gibbons, Jnr -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Martin Gibbons -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• James Hickey (Irish politician) -- tagged as refimprove, but had three refs covering all facts in the article
• John Gill (trade unionist) -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Neal Blaney -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Henry Byrne -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• James White (Irish businessman) -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Robert Rowlette -- tagged as unreferenced, but had one ref
• Johnny Fox -- tagged as refimprove, but had two refs covering all facts in the article
• Séamus Healy -- tagged with {{refimprove}}: everything is covered in the two sources listed
• Honor Mary Crowley -- tagged with {{refimprove}}: everything is covered in the two sources listed
• Frederick Crowley -- tagged with {{refimprove}}: everything is covered in the two sources listed
• John Philip Bagwell -- tagged as unreferenced, but had one ref
• James Hickey (Irish politician) tagged with {{refimprove}}, but everything is covered in the three sources listed
• John Gill (trade unionist) tagged with {{refimprove}}, but everything is covered in the two sources listed)

I note that you have been blocked, and I hoped that when you return you will try to identify articles in need of improvement rather than perceiving tagging as a form of war. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Small fix"

Bart - removing a prod template is most definitely not a "small fix". Why not try adding something useful when you do edit summaries, virtually all your talk page entries are "important reaction" or similar, which helps no one when they are scanning lists of recent changes etc. - -- fchd (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood: I will. -- Extremely sexy (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Richard Rundle got here first, but just thought I should note several instances of {{prod}} tags being removed with the edit summary "small fix": [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35].

WP:PROD says that editors who disagree with the proposed deletion should Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion." Please could you explain (preferably on the talk pages of the articles) why you disagree with the proposed deletions? (the reason for the {{prod}} was the same in each case "under-referenced sub-stub, with no evidence of notability. This is not an article, it is a factoid which belongs in a list"). Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no to comment: I have merged most of them to articles in Category:Lists of supercentenarians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can one claim that f.e. Kamato Hongo is not notable: she was the oldest person in the world? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of WP:BIO cites that as grounds for notability?

Go on, if she's that important, find the references. That's all that's needed, just source the article properly: two substantive articles is all you need. If those don't exist, it looks like the rest of world didn't think she was notable, and that's how notability works: it's not about what you or I think, it's about whether other publishers found her notable. --21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deal: I will do this, but the Gerontology Research Group and "WOP" definitely are reliable sources. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please do carefully read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are some objective measures for assessing the reliability of a source, which go a lot further than "I like and/or trust the author". It's about the extent to which facts are checked by others prior to publication.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 is interesting too: it suggests that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable" ... but goes on to note that "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so".

So on the WOP question, it might just, according to some interpretations, be useable as a verification source, but it can't establish notability (because if it was worth reporting, it wouldn't have to be self-published)

There is a further problem with WOP, in that it's not publicly viewable, and the author restricts who can view it. That makes it rather useless for verification: a private space is hardly publication.

As to GRG, the first thing to note is that it only publishes lists, not biographies (or even potted biographies), so the coverage of each individual is clearly too trivial to meet the requirements for notability per WP:BIO.

As to the WP:RS reliability of the GRG tables for verification, the problem is that the tables themselves provide no annotations of the sources, and the parent article http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm provides a very confused account of how the tables were constructed. This falls some way short of the gold standard for reliable sources, and I guess there is room for dispute as to how far short. An RFC might be in order.

Finally, plaese note that WP:COI advises editors to "avoid, or exercise great caution" when "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles". You are listed at the bottom http://www.grg.org/Adams/Tables.htm as a "long-time collaborator", so it seems to me that WP:COI applies here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my organization at all, honestly. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, they added Bart Versieck's name on October 11, 2007. ROFL. I been going on the GRG site for 3 years and until last month did they decide to put his name. Wow. They really did a good job screwing Bart over for Wikipedia's COI policy. Heh. Neal (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just see what the Wikipedia board members, with Jimmy Wales in particular, will do about this stupidity. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No no, Bart. Let's not be that silly. Actually, we should wait a while. Other stuff are going on. And I'm sure Robert will agree with me that you not go post on Jimmy Wale's talk page this soon. However, you could request to be removed from the GRG site only if you are immediately going to start some mass editing. But I would not suggest that either since there are still people (like me) that can go around editing stuff without getting screwed over for COI. Neal (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no general problem with editing articles relating to your field of expertise; the difficulties arise only with regard to your colleagues. As to the articles, if you add references to independent realiable sources, so much the better, because many of the articles are unreferenced or under-referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, but you honestly did exaggerate a lot of times, "BHG". Extremely sexy (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's right, but I really do want to have this matter solved finally, Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What would be the complaint to Jimbo? That WP:V and WP:RS are being applied? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No: you do know what I mean. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean. The only grounds I can see for complaint here appears to be that WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO are being applied to supercentenarians, and that an editor who had created articles on himself and his colleagues eventually got blocked after engaging in massive disruption of AFDs, with widespread canvassing and block-evasion. If you really think that Jimbo would be shocked by that, you should make the complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of stupid articles about very much unkown sporting figures who f.e. finished last in some sort of Olympic event, so they really are not notable (unlike Eva Morris, to name just one), but you don't attack those, which is unlogical, if you mean what you say that is. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The reason I am combing through the articles on old people is that it is an area which I encountered in which many of the active editors pay scant regard to notability guidelines or to WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. There are of course many other poor articles on non-notable subjects, but I am just combing trying to tidy up this particularly problematic area. If you want to suggest deletion of other articles on non-notable people, feel free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, but Ruby Muhammad's proof of age exaggeration is no original research at all though. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to live in an independent republic of Flanders

I've heard about this in the media - but on Wikipedia there does not yet appear to be a Flanders independence movement article. Could you possibly suggest why this might be? --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well: I wouldn't know really, but it's definitely a controversial item and extremely hot nowadays, my friend. -- Extremely sexy (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

List of the oldest people

There are 99 people, not 100, on the current version of the table. Please, fix it. Georgia guy (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol.. looks like Bart found himself a new master (or follower in another sense). Neal (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

It looks that way, yes, doesn't it, but the 99th place is an ex aequo now, so there are 100 people on it anyway. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor decision making

It has already been very much established that changing Ruby Muhammad's birthdate without third-party, independent sources to verify the claims is not only original research, but a violation of Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living people. Please do not reinsert this material again unless it can be backed up by third-party, reliable sources. Cheers, CP 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Webroots" definitely is however, Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the talk page - please remember to assume good faith and be civil in your edit summaries, something you by far should not have to be reminded about at this page. It IS original research because you're taking information and coming to an original conclusion about the material presented. We cannot have this on biographies of living people. Please do not continue to add original research to the biographies of living people. Cheers, CP 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is just hopeless, Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's "hopeless" as a vehicle for publishing original research, and it's intended to be that way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but thanks to you and blocking Robert for eternity my interest in the project has very much diminished. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

Please see the AFDs for Gertrude Baines. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) And Adelina Domingues, Betsy Baker, James Henry Brett, Jr., and a whole lot more. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said: it's just hopeless. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Watkins

• World's oldest person at one point, up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Watkins - thought you might like to know.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, my dear friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution

Hi Bart

I note that you have said several times that you regard wikipedia as "hopeless". We have very different views on that, but it's clear from the current AfD discussions on very old people that the consensus is that the threshold for inclusion of articles on very old people is much higher than you would like.

So I want to make a suggestion, which is seriously intended to be helpful. In one word, it's Wikia.

You and others interested in very old people could use Wikia to create, entirely free, a wiki devoted solely to supercentenarians or lengevity: the instructions are here.

You could set your own criteria for inclusion, include original research if you want to, and so on: no rules other than those which you and other editors set. Everything on wikipedia is published under the GFDL, so it would be entirely legitimate to copy across material from wikipedia (so long as wikipedia is acknowledged as the source). In fact, if such a supercentenarian-wiki existed, it could be used to transwiki articles which are deleted from wikipedia, so that the deleted material is not lost.

I do want to stress that I am not suggesting this as a means of removing material from wikipedia: the existence of a wikia site is no grounds for deletion from wikipedia. I am suggesting it purely as a means by which you and others interested in supercentenarians can use wiki techbology to publish all the material which interests you.

Anyway, please discard this idea if you don't find it helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No: it's a great idea honestly, and thanks for your suggestion in that regard. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. If you decide to pursue the idea and would like any help, just ask (on my talk or by email). I have no desire to edit or otherwise run such a wiki, but I see that the Start a new Wikia page says that a requiremnt is to have a large potential audience and be likely to attract enough editors to maintain the wiki", and I I would be happy to help make such a case for you if you liked. (I may be teaching grannies to suck eggs, and sorry if I am). Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks: I will bear that in mind. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Hughes

(the author) You did some work on that article, though you didn't write it. Another ed. nominated that article for proposed deletion, but I removed the tag. You might want to further improve by adding references and reduce the promotional tone. I realise you only came across it by accident while doing the article on another person, so don't be concerned about if you don't want to be. 05:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, quite on the contrary, and thanks for telling me. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Why did you undo this edit without providing the necessary citation? Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're asking about edits, what about this? Both perfectly legitimate edits of mine (removing the link to a person who has no article and replacing the old recordholder with the new one). Cheers, CP 07:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's because Maggie Barnes wasn't born in California, but in Georgia. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation makes no sense. First of all, this isn't a list of where they were born, but where they live now. Second of all, no one is claiming that Barnes was born in either state (she's listed under North Carolina). Third of all, your edits show no attempt to rectify this imagined problem anyhow as they serve only to a) Reintroduce a bypassed state longevity recordholder b) Reintroduce a red link to an article that was deleted in an AfD. Explain yourself properly before reverting again. Cheers, CP 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Gertrude Baines, and it is by state of birth, as it clearly states in the table. Extremely sexy (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Battista Serioli

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Battista Serioli, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Veterans of the First World War who died in 2008

Per WP:CBALL, please wait until a Veteran actually dies in 2008 before creating this page. Cheers, CP 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, but it's obvious there will occur more deaths this year as well though. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even Deaths in 2007 and Deaths in 2008 were deleted when started before someone actually died, and they've got 6 billionish to choose from. We've only got 19 plus some era-ers. Cheers, CP 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Allright: point taken. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo-Sam Choi

Do you have a source that proves he was removed from a venilator on January 3? My source said he was removed from a venilator on wednesday, which would have been January 2. BoxRec also has his death date as January 2. Rvk41 (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruby Muhammad

Let's not start this up again. You know as well as I that the source you used for the birth date constitutes original research. Furthermore, inserting casual terms like "By the way..." is not part of encyclopedic tone and only serves to lower the quality of the article, so please do not add them. Encyclopedias do not address their readers. Cheers, CP 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But her claim is false, as proven. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been told the rules enough. Reliable, independent, third party sources, which your provided link is not. If you really feel that strongly about it, maybe a request for comment is appropriate, but there's no sense in continually adding material that violates Wikipedia policy. Cheers, CP 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper report about this would be sufficient. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be. Let me know when one pops up. Cheers, CP 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will then. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Battista Serioli

An editor has nominated Battista Serioli, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battista Serioli and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it, but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you know

Per WP:MOSLINK: However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Got it? And by the way, this is your last warning about disruptive editing on the Ruby Muhammad page (I didn't see a source for you changing the category from "American supercentenarians" to "Longevity claims". Did you think I wouldn't notice?) The next time you add original research or unverified claims to Ruby Muhammad, or any biography of a living person, you will be blocked for one week for disruption (you've been blocked enough in the past to show that if you continue your behavior, shorter blocks are not effective) and, since User:BrownHairedGirl has also attempted to solve this problem with you, a request for comment will be started in your name. Cheers, CP 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Her claim of being 110 is false (at the very least unverified), Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion and, until you have a reliable, independent, third-party source to back it up, then it does not belong on Wikipedia, especially on a biography of a living person. Cheers, CP 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to find one very soon indeed. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An article of possible interest

http://allafrica.com/stories/200801110311.html => there are certainly some points of interest in there - although it appears to be a case of "knock off twenty years, then I might believe you" - e.g. age inflation. Anyway, there are sufficient interesting bits for me to draw it to your attention. RichyBoy (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed: thanks for the information. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Scheier & Goldsmith

Thanks for the cleanups. ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have reviewed John F. Kennedy assassination and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a long time ago indeed for me, actually, but thanks for the notification anyway: I will have a look at it in due course. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop inserting your personal bias

First of all, Ruby Muhammad is innocent until proven guilty... if Leila Denmark is in the American supercentenarian category, then Muhammad should be too. Alternatively, both may be filed under longevity claims. I'm sure you've read the talk page of the Muhammad article. Secondly, please respect the guidelines laid out on the talk page for list of living supercentenarians, in that all unverified claims are just "claims" (by the way, "alleged" is a pejorative term in this context). Adding "claimed" (or in your case, "alleged") to certain cases and not others is just another way of trying to your subjective bias on the issue. If you continue in this vein, I will request administrative action. Please respect the quest for objectivity on this project or find another hobby. Thanks. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am well sure that Bart will respect the guidelines this time. I am sure this won't happen again. Right Bart?--King Lopez ^Contribs 09:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, and just read my mail now. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you're confusing the concern with objectivity for a value judgment on what her actual age is. I personally think she's not 110. But there are important policies at work here. Anyhow, since you've decided to continue ignoring consensus and objectivity guidelines, I've privately contacted an administrator who will hopefully be in touch with you shortly to resolve the issue in a ways that unregistered users cannot. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you leave Wikipedia, keep you promise and don't come back. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bart, Bart, Bart, why am I getting emails from strangers about your behavior? I'm supposed to be retired! Well, the great thing about being retired (as opposed to banned) is that I can return in the name of Wikipedia policy whenever I choose. Your consistent actions that defy consensus and policy are insulting and trying to get away with because you think I'm gone is just offensive. I'm retired from general editing, but I still have a sense of giving a damn about getting the job done right. You've been warned enough times on this issue; I am going to set up a WP:RFC on this issue so that future editors will have a decision to relate to and can reverse your changes on sight without further discussion. We will soon have a decision made on who is "utterly incorrect". Also, I assume the comment about leaving Wikipedia, keeping my promise and never coming back is directed at me. A retired actor occasionally makes cameos, and I will make as many as it takes to ensure that you do not insert your subjectivity into this encyclopedia. Retirement is not a promise to leave forever, just a declaration not to edit regularly. I will link you to the RFC when it is prepared. Cheers, CP 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may comment on the request for comment here. Cheers, CP 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone else, not me, added the "1906", which I changed into "1907", that's all: why don't you just direct the right person? Extremely sexy (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not change it back to 1897, which was the consensus and, from the RfC, still is? Furthermore, you did this junk, which is just as against the consensus as the other edits. So let's get serious here. Cheers, CP 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No: that's just the truth, whether you do like it or not, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about verifiable truth. The community has spoken. Cheers, CP 22:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes: her age inflation has been proven. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Bart, I am going to give you a very strong warning regarding your disruption. You've been here and been told long enough that the rules of Wikipedia are to be obeyed. You've edited enough to know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other things on Wikipedia. There's no argument whatsoever on that one. Second of all, there was consensus on the talk page hammered out to give the unverified supercentenarians an objective criteria for inclusion. You cannot just add names willy-nilly to fit your own subjective interpretations and change the criteria in defiance of said consensus. If you persist with the disruption, I will open a RfC about your behavior and I will recommend that you, like Robert Young, be banned from editing Wikipedia. Your edits are continually disruptive and offensive and are not welcome on this project. Please consider this warning very carefully. Cheers, CP 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely no "reason" at all for this, and you know it. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "intimidate" you. If you want to make a change that goes against consensus, why not discuss it first? Yes, you should be bold, but common courtesy dictates that if you've been reverted by two different people, it might be valuable to discuss the issue on the talk page. Remember that there is no deadline. Cheers, CP 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have, but before only by one person, being an anonymous editor too, so why bother indeed, Paul? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bart, my darling, got to know not to piss the admins off. :| What happened to Robert Young and Kitia could also happen to you. Don't be the sheep following the shepherd (R. Young) into the slaughter house or whatever. Neal (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not and Paul isn't an administrator anymore, hence, my dear beloved friend Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes I am. Cheers, CP 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's rather strange, so after having left the project for an entire month you can still remain one no matter what then? Extremely sexy (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

People who have been gone for years still have it. You can't misuse the tools if you're not around to use them! Cheers, CP 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right, but the opposite applies as well, so don't ever misuse them when you are around to use them, Paul. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As a lesson, try not to jump into conclusions when they can be verified, beforehand. It clearly says so on his talk page. This certainly provided an explanation for the you vs. Canadian Paul dramas. Even if he weren't an admin, that's no reason to act differently. Even if you pissed a non-admin off, you could still violate some of Wikipedia's uncivil policies. Logically, you could conclude an admin could lose their status by getting it removed, or if their account was entirely deleted. Neal (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC).

As I said, I didn't do this at all, whether he is an administrator or not, Nealy. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122

So User:Ryoung122 managed to get himself banned. Even though I had my share of head butts with him I feel a little bad... he seemed like a real deal Subject Matter Expert when it came to centinarians and those even older. It's a shame he couldn't behave himself.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully he will return. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

He has our sympathies. Regards. Neal (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean even yours nevertheless, Neal? Extremely sexy (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why yes. ;_; Neal (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well: since you two really aren't the best of friends though, are you? Extremely sexy (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, huh? Where did you get that idea? Neal (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So now you are being ironic, Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have any evidence that I don't like Robert Young! Neal (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I totally forgot about that poem about Robert Young I posted on BrownHairedGirl's talk that got me personally removed from his WOP group. Oh well. -_-. Neal (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right, Neal. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Ryoung122 is not banned. An indefinite block is in place, but at this juncture, over three months after the events that took place back in November 2007, it is my opinion that, given that this was the first substantial block, any contrite unblock request from Robert for a second chance, reviewed by an independent admin (i.e. not one of those involved at the time - mostly Maxim, BrownHairedGirl, or me, and not one that has had dealings with him before, i.e. CP), would succeed. Robert's behaviour after any such unblock is what would determine what would happen next, and I would hope that those who were involved at the time back then would give him a fair chance, as I, like Dr who1975, agree that Robert is a "real deal Subject Matter Expert". Of course, not all such experts are suited to Wikipedia, but I think Robert (and others) may adapt and learn and come to edit Wikipedia in the correct way, and with less conflict and with more agreements on what sources to use and how. And Wikipedia will be the better for it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: sentence 2. Mk then. Neal (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? Extremely sexy (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no explanation though, you great one. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Robert was thinking of coming back after the current disputes on Wikipedia are resolved. Also, as he's working on a hundred page master's degree thesis (graduating this summer), is when he's likely he will want to return, he said. Neal (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not getting the message there. What does "Mk then" mean? And yes, Robert has said the same to me. I'm just recording my opinion here so that people don't let what is actually an indefinite block followed by long break, be confused with a ban. It is well known that indefinite blocks that no-one is willing to lift are bans, but I'm saying that it would probably be fairly easy for Robert to get this block lifted now. Back then, when feelings were running high, maybe not, but now, I think it would be easier for people to agree to a second chance. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You would be absolutely right, under the assumption that a new, independent admin, really finds it a difference about how long the block was set ago. Neal (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's more a question of contriteness. If someone says they won't do what they did to get blocked, then they usually get unblocked, especially if it was a long time ago. If they then repeat that behaviour, then it is more problematic, but you have to unblock to find that out. That is what "second chance" means. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that require the unblocking-admin to unblock before finding that out? Or could the independent admin actually contact with Robert outside of Wikipedia before making that decision? Neal (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert would normally use the {{unblock}} template, but since his talk page has been protected (something else I disagreed with), he will have to e-mail the unblock mailing list instead when he decides he wants to. As you have said, he is busy at the moment, but is likely to request an unblock in the summer. If Robert does eventually file an unblock request via the mailing list, I think the normal procedure is to contact the blocking admin regardless, and to hold off on unblocking if there is any doubt. The wording of the block log would indicate that the blocking admin would normally be contacted. Sometimes, though, when unblock requests are filed months later, the blocking admin is not available or may even have retired or left. It would be interesting to know how many unblock requests are filed months after the original events. The normal pattern is for an angry series of unblock requests to be denied, and then for the editor to lose interest in Wikipedia. I suspect it is quite rare for someone to request an unblock many months later, and this is, in my opinion, actually a good sign - it demonstrates commitment and, if the editor reforms, can really result in a good Wikipedia editor. For the record, I always thought a block of a few months was more appropriate than an indefinite block, but at the moment Robert seems to want to stay blocked (partly, I suspect, to get his thesis done - we all know how difficult it can be to manage the amount of time spent on Wikipedia). Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So um, when Robert e-mails the mailing list - who gets to decide which admin handles this case? 1st come 1st serve? Or done by vote? I assume Maxim and such still get to have a say in this. Neal (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I presume it is like the unblock template, 1st come 1st served, though possibly there is scope of an on-list discussion. I don't know, as I've never got round to subscribing to that list. As I said above, given the wording of the block log, I would expect any reviewing admin to ask Maxim what happened at the time, and I would hope Maxim would give his opinion, but also direct people to BrownHairedGirl and me, or at least point out previous discussions on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Carcharoth - if you felt that time made any notable difference in R. Young's block, evidently not. The fact that time has passed, makes little difference in the logic of his block. The problem with this is, the block is indefinite.. Which means you have to trial-and-error to see if anyone is okay with him being unblocked, and that doesn't get you far. For example, if BrownHairedGirl was for Robert Young's block at the time, but not anymore, then it would be illogical of her to be okay with removing his block now. This makes it a popularity contest - not on whether there is an objective truth to the duration of his block - but on how much whether he is liked or not for the duration of his block. In such case, if BrownHairedGirl all of a sudden changed her mind because her dislikeness of R. Young goes down - then that itself is illogical, because it goes to the emotional appeal. And if she were still for R. Young's block, then that would be logical because it is consistent with time - and not based on an emotional appeal or her own personal mood. Or do you think R. Young's block should be based on BrownHairedGirl's personal mood? Either way, this is a lose-lose-nothing situation.

Of course, just about none of that applies, since you seemingly mentioned an independent admin will be handling this case (but I don't think it has to be). Since we don't know who that independent admin is, this is reserved for a future discussion. Logically, since it was Maxim who set the block, my opinion is that it would be Maxim's duty to unblock. We might actually get somewhere if - all we need to do is if someone can get Maxim to talk.

Whether or not Maxim will ever wake up 1 morning and feel the motive to do something about Robert Young's block, that's quite simply his prerogative. And I don't know much about Maxim's logic to conclude anything. Neal (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Neal, you presume there that BrownHairedGirl and Maxim get all their decisions right, or should never be allowed to change their minds. I'm sure they would be the first to say that this is not the case, even if they are unlikely to change their minds. Also, blocking and unblocking doesn't quite work the way you seem to think it does. The community and arbcom are quite capable of blocking and unblocking over and above any protests by individual admins (and that includes me). The way this will probably go is that (1) Robert Young will, when he is less busy (in the summer it seems), appeal through the unblock mailing list. (2) If that fails I will (depending on the evidence others provide) start a community discussion saying that I think Robert Young should have a second chance. (3) If that fails I will ask ArbCom to review the case in order that they can receive off-wiki evidence and review the evidence. All I am doing here is trying to find out exactly what went on, and to ensure people are aware of the avenues of appeal they have. I am doing this because I think Robert Young does have expertise to contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't want this to be shut off because people won't allow him a chance at reforming his behaviour, or because people possibly (please note that qualifier) have unintentionally misrepresented or overstated what happened here. I'm not trying to defend any unacceptable behaviour by anyone on either side, just trying to look beyond that and get people working together again. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My case still stands - on starting a committee dedicated to viewing all of Robert's faults which I posted on Canadial Paul's talk. This is the idea of probation. I feel R. Young has a better chance of getting an unblock under the compromise of having a probation committee. I currently don't know much about how your #2 works. You basically stated that you and a bunch of other admins can override Maxim + BrownHairedGirl. As per having ArbCom reviewing off-wiki evidence, that might actually hurt R. Young's case if they knew about past posts going on in his WOP group, but I'm can't say I'm sure of that. Neal (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Probation tends to be a single person mentoring someone, and is not meant to be indefinite - at some point the person on probation will return to being a normal editor without anything other than normal restrictions. I'm not aware of any probation committees. I have offered several times to mentor Robert. My #2 referred to a community discussion. Ultimately community discussions, if a broad enough consensus is reached, can overule most things. Admin actions aren't sacrosanct in that respect, and the very existence of unblock appeal options means that admin actions can be overturned. There has to be a reason, obviously, but the reason for keeping a block in place can't be (as you seem to be saying) purely left to the decision of the blocking admin. That is the reason why such reviews are called independent reviews. Blocks that lack such independent review give individual admins too much power. As for off-wiki evidence harming Robert Young's case, equally, there is stuff that has been said on-wiki about him that went too far (it is not generally advisable to say things about blocked users that one wouldn't normally say to another user - the day sometimes comes when that user is unblocked and one has to work with that user again, even after having said what one said). Such things that have been said while Robert has been blocked would come out at an arbitration case as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This brings back to my point about how time doesn't play a notable factor. Robert already made an unblock request. He was declined by a Guy. Decline reason: "Nope. You have been abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)" In that case - 1 can't exactly tell whether there is a correlation between time and the decline reason. I have a question though, you talk about how there could be a community discussion. What if 1 admin wants to do an unblock accept but another wanted to do a decline? I'm guessing it's based upon 1st come 1st serve. That is, if the 1st admin declined, and a 2nd admin wanted to recline, then there would be a conflict. And vice versa. I'm guessing *by default* any Wikipedia admin (including you and BrownHairedGirl), that could be on that e-mail list, could be the admin to decline/accept, except for Maxim and Guy (because 1 was the blocker and the other was the 1st declining admin). In that case, it could be on the 1st come 1st serve basis, plus upcoming conflict. Or does the 2nd and 3rd admin have no choice but to agree on the 1st admin's decision? Neal (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

I suspect that in the normal run of things, a request by Robert Young for unblocking might succeed if presented to a third-party admin who didn't review all the history. However, if Young is unblocked, I would hope that it should require a clear commitment from him to follow WP:COI and WP:NOR and, crucially, WP:TPG. Robert's failure to use talk pages properly made it well-nigh impossible to resolve problem with him: his huge rambling posts with no focus on any one issue and massive copy-and-pasted blocks of previous conversations were as disruptive as all his COI and original research.

However, I also have a personal point here which I would press in the event of any unblocking. Young used his WOP mailing list to conduct a massive campaign of disruption and intimidation by proxy, which involved widescale circulation of personal attacks on me and open invitations to join wikipedia to engage in systematic WP:POINT disruption (you may recall that Bart was one of those who took up Young's WP:POINT suggestions). Both of those behaviours were seriously disruptive, but the huge hate campaign directed personally against me was highly intimidating. No amount of subject expertise makes a campaign of harrassment and intimidation acceptable, so if Young is unblocked without a clear assurance that there will be no repetition of this, and that he will stop using his mailing list to recruit and co-ordinate meatpuppets, then I would set about asking for the block to be restored.

I have to say that I was very disappointed at the time that Carcharoth appeared to treated Young's harrassment and intimidation so lightly, and that it has not been mentioned in the discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And I hope you appreciate that this is why I left you a note letting you (and others) know about this discussion - doesn't that show good faith on my part and a desire to make sure everyone is kept informed and is allowed the chance to present their case? It would have been nice if you had thanked me for leaving you the note. My problem with allegations of harassment involving off-wiki matters is that they are just that: allegations, until proven otherwise. I don't think Wikipedia admins should be asked to judge block and unblock requests on the basis of claims of off-wiki harassment that they may not be able to verify for themselves. Claims such as "a massive campaign of disruption and intimidation by proxy" and "huge hate campaign directed personally against me" are very serious, should not be used lightly, and the evidence for such should be presented properly. My concern here is that people are hearing of what happened off-wiki through your descriptions of it. If your descriptions overstate the case, that is not a good basis for other admins to be making decisions about what to do. I'm happy to leave this until such a time as Robert requests unblocking, but wanted to make clear here that Robert Young is not banned and that unblocking is still an option on the table. Further discussion should probably take place somewhere else. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thanked you here for the note on my talk page. (I did thank you there[36])

However, I am surprised that you appear to be suggesting that I was making these claims "lightly". Far from it: I'm very serious. But the various AfDs at the time contained plenty of evidence of how Young was using his mailing list for harassment, and my talk page archives contain long screeds of abuse from editors sent here by Robert. You were witness to some of that at the time, which is why I expressed my disappointment, and why I continue to be disappointed that you describe this as "allegations" as if you had seen no sign of it at the time. I'm not asking you simply accept my version of events, let alone to "judge block and unblock requests on the basis of claims of off-wiki harassment" — just to acknowledge that there is sufficient on-wiki evidence to make a prima facie case for investigating this further prior to any unblocking.

As to evidence, apart from the on-wiki material, I have copies of only some of the emails which Young circulated, but it would be quite possible to ask Young to open up the archives of his mailing list to any admin considering an unblock request, so that they can asses things for themselves. All I ask is that if an unblock is being considered, that this issue be investigated, because as you say it is very serious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your reply (and thanks) over there. There is a general point that when something serious happens, it should be resolved at the time to avoid the problem of later unblock requests failing to address the previous issues. Part of the problem is that you and others continued to occasionally talk on-wiki about what had happened, for some time after the events, and Robert had no way of contesting or correcting what was being said. I think I did say at the time that some of the claims should have been investigated more thoroughly. Personally, I think the way you describe it makes things sound more co-ordinated than it was, though I say that without knowing what was said on the mailing list, and I do ask that you not paraphrase what was said as the only thing that would satisfy me is seeing actual copies of what was said. Having said that, I think a little bit of give on both sides would help here - both Robert acknowledging some of the problems at the time more clearly and apologising for what happened, and you not assuming the worst motives behind some of what happened and indicating that it would not be impossible for you to work with Robert in the future (i.e. this summer). This is mainly because there is no point in an unblock if you or others immediately bring up the previous behaviour issues with him instead of giving him a reasonable chance to show that he can behave differently. And now we really must leave Bart's talk page in peace! Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff though. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just on the fringes, but if he asked properly I would support an unblock here. A fresh start might be possible. DGG (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)