The

Adventure

Hi Newshunter12!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't assume a birth date based on the publication date of the article. It said she was born in January 1905 and that she had just celebrated it which does not mean it was on that day.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the situation with Jeanne Bot is not perfect as the article doesn't explicitly state her date of birth, but either we go with the implied January 18, find a reliable source showing it's the 14 or remove her. Using the implied 18th since another reliable source doesn't seem to exist seemed the best option to me, but which do you prefer? For my part, a reasonable editor could believe the article is saying she was born on the 18, but I obviously wasn't there myself 112 years ago to know for certain. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I set up a conversation on the talk page about it.--Dorglorg (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating, believe me. I was a peripheral part of the ArbCom case all that time ago, and the issues go back before my time to at least 2006. My work on this has earned me a lot of off-wiki vitriol from the 110 Club, the way they talk about me you'd think I actually go around murdering these people or desecrating their remains. It's just not worth taking personally or letting it get to you. The long game, such as it is, will work out, it just takes time; lest you be discouraged, look at WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts and WP:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination). Your contributions in the area are enormously helpful and valued, don't get discouraged. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) Thank you so much for your words of encouragement and for sharing the trials you have faced for many years while editing in this topic. This wiki topic is a tough realm to be in for sure, but I agree that the long game is in our favor as demonstrated by the links you provided, which I read. No worries, I will stay strong and keep editing in the topic, while letting the insults and slander against me go. I clearly have had it easy compared to you! Thank you for your compliments about my editing in the longevity topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And thank you for getting involved. It is an interesting subject, after all, and Wikipedia's coverage of it can be the sum of all the best sources. Definitely keep at it, and I'll help out as much as I can. WP:WikiProject Longevity is looking good, and strengthening it will be a huge asset. Thanks for all your hard work, and don't ever hesitate to reach out to me for anything. (And as an aside, it is strangely amusing to see the way the longevity types portray me; insert "longevity fanboy" for "vandal" here and do the same for "troll" here and it's a huge weight off your shoulders) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newshunter12. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a source? http://centenaires-francais.fo...e-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus Ignoto2 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignoto2 That "source" is a forum, and forums are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. You must also provide the reliable source (a newspaper article or obituary for example) when you make a death removal; its existence somewhere else is not enough. I don't think you had bad faith in your removal, but this is not the first time you have failed to adhere to policy and I have warned you before in edit summaries, so I felt an official warning was needed this time. Please adhere to policy going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Next time i will provide a reliable sources before changing Ignoto2 (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching at EEng's talk page, and I hope that your retirement will not be permanent, maybe just a refreshing break for a while over the holidays. But, very seriously, if you are seeing any indication of anything threatening to you or to your family, please email ArbCom about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really don't want to start an edit war between us. Is there any compromise version of the page we could agree on? Rockstonetalk to me! 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockstone Hey, I really appreciate you defending me at the edit warring notice board. I'm going to continue this discussion at the approprotate article talk page so that other editors have a chance to see it. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Sounds good. --Rockstonetalk to me! 23:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Newshunter12 reported by User:178.239.161.219 (Result: ). This is a complaint about edit warring at Oldest people. If you don't believe you were edit warring, you may wish to respond. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Lepetit is apparently 112 and alive

http://centenaires-francais.forumactif.org/t18-preuves-de-vie-sur-les-personnes-de-110-ans-et-plus#9270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2FBA:7F90:A98F:BD74:38C:28D2 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider forums to be reliable sources. That citation is of no use to us. What list were you referring to by the way? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting hot there, I know. I'm trying my very best to keep things from boiling over, this still is nothing like the blowups that went on in 2010 and no one who was around then wants a repeat. I hope this is the last of the contentious AfDs in this topic area (I have 2 merge ideas, but that should be much less contentious). You've been extremely helpful in this topic area, and I want you to stick around, so do your best to stay above the fray. It can be extremely taxing, but it's only one discussion; if, in fact, the article is kept and there are some sources, rewriting it a bit can be beneficial in a couple different ways. I'll do my part to keep on keeping on, there's certainly enough good existing content in this topic area to improve on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights I tried to resolve at least part of the situation with BHG, but I'll sum that effort up as a train wreck. As far as that one AfD goes, I'm done with my involvement, now. We'll both keep up the good fight elsewhere for sure, mate. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Never hurts to step back sometimes, there's always somewhere else in need of some kind of work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since our secret admirer seems insistent on sticking around for a while, I've semiprotected your talkpage for a month. Let me know if you want me to modify that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights Thanks so much, mate, for all the good work you've done on my talkpage today. A month of semi-protection sounds great - it's been very rare that an IP address has constructively edited my talkpage, so I'm not really missing anything good. If it ever came to it in the future, I'd be fine with permanent or very long semi-protection. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll definitely keep an eye on things. If someone wants to bother me, well, I work with disabled adults, so dealing with long profane rants is part of the deal; at least on Wikipedia I don't (as happened to me once) have to restrain someone for 4 1/2 hours in full Halloween costume! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Newshunter12 (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Newshunter12. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newshunter12. You have new messages at Hijiri88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wasn't sure if you get pings.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your excellent hard work of conducting in-depth scrutiny of so many portals, and your well-reasoned nominations for deletion of those which do not meet established guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BrownHairedGirl for giving me my first Barnstar! I saw it much earlier but didn't have time to respond then. It really made my day! I'm going to add it to my user page right now. It's really sweet of you - thanks again! :) Newshunter12 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. It has been hard-earned! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take no offense, but it sometimes looks like you are just copying and pasting the same thing across recent portal deletion discussions. I don't have substantial arguments against yours, but they sound pretty similar in general and don't really add much to the discussions. You might as well create a user subpage titled something like User:Newshunter12/Standard portal deletion argument and subst it. Geolodus (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page watcher) I have to say I kind of disagree with that analysis. My perception is that cut-and-paste !votes are very common in certain areas of XfDs. For example, at WP:DELSORT/Football, it's common to see "Delete, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL" over and over again, even largely from the same editors, even for years. There's just not a lot of ways to say "lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources". That may be true for 9 out of 10 articles that are nominated, so everybody ends up saying "fails GNG" over and over and over again. I don't agree that this doesn't really add much to the discussion–not every XfD really needs a lot of discussion, after all. With the football AfDs, noms basically say "I searched and can't find GNG sources" ("fails GNG"), and three or four editors say, "Yup, I also can't find GNG sources" ("fails GNG"), and so having three or four editors all say "fails GNG" is useful insofar as it indicates that multiple editors have searched and have been unable to find in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. So it is with WP:POG. It's no secret that the overwhelming majority of portals fail POG–they're not broad enough, don't have enough readers and maintainers, etc., and when they "fail POG" there's really little else to say other than that. Now, you may say, "if the overwhelming majority of portals fail POG, why don't we find a more efficient way to process them?" The answer, I think, is: because a group of editors insisted that we go through them one-by-one. So, there's 1,000+ portals that fail POG, we're going to go through them one by one, and that means 1,000 "fails POG" !votes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sometimes I try to break up that monotony by making a joke, that's basically the best solution I've been able to come up with to this problem. – Levivich 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leviv Thank you for defending me in this matter. You captured my perspective on portals perfectly, so there's very little that I can add. @Geolodus, it's not my fault that a seemingly endless stream of portals have the same exact failures of WP:POG, so that my MfD votes often sound similar, especially when I am responding to @BrownHairedGirl's exceedingly comprehensive noms. If that upsets you, then you should take it up with the people who made these heaps of abandoned portals and those editors that are forcing a one by one cleanup effort. I assure you, I've done a considerable amount of examination and research on these portals. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolodus, I recommend that you look at a wider selection of NH12's MFD !votes. They are more varied than your comments suggest.

Where the nomination is well-researched and detailed, NH12 does indeed post a fairly standard shortish reply. But when the nomination is skimpier, they often provide a lot more detail. And NH12's research is v thorough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this certainly caused quite a discussion. I wasn't really upset, just a bit ... concerned, for lack of a better word. As stated in my original comment, I wasn't directly arguing against NH12 or for useless portals. Geolodus (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		for making a concerted effort to tag multiple editors when proposing a new idea on portals, including some editors who held some opposing views.Sm8900 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I highly appreciated your effort to tag all participating editors when you posted your recent idea, on how to handle the namespace for portals. I may have disagreed with it, but your willingness to make sure to include others in the discussion shows what Wikipedia is really all about. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900 Thank you so much for this barnstar! Glad something came out of that attempt at consensus. I have to disagree with your take though that "Lack of page views is not a reason to discard portals". Though its status as a guideline is in question, WP:POG has long stated portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Roughly 900 abandoned portals have been deleted in the past six months for those and other quality/broadness reasons. Portals don't have their own content, so their only value is their utility. Take Portal:Monaco for instance. From January 1 to June 30 2019, it had 4 views per day, while the head article Monaco (which has many rich and versatile navboxes) had 7,048 views per day. This means the portal only had 0.06% of the daily page views of the head article and it would take nearly five years for the portal to have the total number of views the head article has in a single day.

The portal only serves as a distraction from the head article, and given how many bots scour the web and the swarms of bots Wikipedia itself uses, are any of those 4 views even usually real people? About 900 portals (over 50% of the pre-TTH spam portals) have already been deleted for being abandoned failures. My experience at hundreds of portal MfD's that closed as delete is that nearly all portals are abandoned relics of past editors' momentary enthusiasm, and that there is 15 years of hard evidence that by any sane metric, the Portals Project has been a complete disaster. Head articles, with vastly higher readership and quality then their associated portals, and their very common rich and versatile navboxes are all we need on Wikipedia. There are plenty of junk portals currently at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if you want to see for yourself the truth about portal space at large. Voting is your own business, I'm just trying to help you understand this topic. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about portals. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you make some interesting points. I will try to give that some real thought. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Not much has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the longevity editors, the portal platoon illustrate sanity. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I know right! Appreciate the coffee and support. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that I was going to say that, as in giving the portal platoon faint praise or in praising the longevity editors with faint dammns, or something. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Moxy 🍁 07:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 02:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)

Many thanks for your copyedit[1] of my Portals ArbCom evidence. It was a helpful and neutral cleanup, and I do hope that you aren't rebuked for it.

After spending a day examining the piles of counter-factual absurdity elsewhere in that page, I was well fed up, and had to pace myself with breaks to keep going through it. So I ended up posting right on the deadline, and was too close to it all to proof-read properly without a few hours break. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl You are very welcome! I figured as much and fear not, as copy-editing your evidence so much made me feel very productive and helpful. Unfortunately, I've been rebuked, and it's been reverted by a new Arb and they will not let me reinstate it, but say you may request to change your own evidence at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence.

I thought you did a great job illustrating the main points of the issues surrounding portal fan conduct and portal space at large, as well as your growing disillusionment with Wikipedia. You raised many of the same issues that I did, and this rebuke of my copyedit rather dovetails with what you said about the decline of Wikipedia's environment. It's heading in the same direction, with startling accuracy, as your work with portals. Ignoring the substance of what I did and focusing only on the process, just as your intelligent evidence and facts about portals were ignored because you... you... after many months of putting up with it, weren't polite calling nonsense out for what it was. As I said before, this whole set up speaks very poorly about Wikipedia as an organization beholden to the lowest common denominator. We shouldn't even be having this conversation because portal space should never have been created in the first place, let alone sustained when from the very beginning it was clearly a playground creating an ever growing abandoned trash-heap.

But when an organization lacks both common sense and central planning, that's what happens. Stupidity. And it doesn't help that playground-editors don't care about wasting the time of people like you and I cleaning up their mess, and quite possibly get a thrill from it. Why else would someone demand meticulous week+ one by one cleanup of spam portals created at a rate of one every two minutes?

I'm in a bit of a conundrum as I enjoy helping you and talking with you, but want to leave Wikipedia, the only place we interact at. I'll watch the ArbCom case to its end, but I'm not giving Wikipedia more of my time. It clearly doesn't deserve it. Consequently, I'll save goodbyes for later. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newshunter12

Many thanks for all that you have written there. I am v sorry to hear that you feel minded to give up, but I am unsurprised.

Please will you consider sending me an email (via Special:EmailUser/BrownHairedGirl) so that we can keep in touch? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you, @BrownHairedGirl, but for years I have maintained a hard line between my personal life and Wikipedia, and I'm hesitant to ever cross that threshold. If you don't mind, I'd rather prefer to fade into the mist with the understanding I'm welcome to knock on your wiki-door in the future (ex. I might have questions about Ireland). Farewell for now, though I won't be leaving until the ArbCom case is finished. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I understand that desire for privacy, and operate a similar approach myself. I was ready to make an exception in your case, but I well understand your desire to keep a hard line.

You are of course v welcome to keep in touch whenever you pop back here. I'd like that. However, I am personally so disillusioned that I may pull the plug myself. As noted in my evidence, I now have little faith in the ability of Wikipedia's processes to sustain the principle that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and that skill and honesty are baseline requirements. I am withholding final judgement until the arb case is over, but I fear that we have reached a tipping point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that Nina Willis be added to the oldest living persons list. Her date of birth is January 14, 1909 making her currently 111 years 88 days old. You seem to be a very active editor on the oldest persons list so I thought you might be interested in this particular case. Citation: fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-woman-celebrating-111th-birthday. Thanks for all you do editing. I for one appreciate it very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bromleychuck I have since boldly reduced the size of that article's list to 50 entries due to systemic maintenance and quality issues, so at 111, Nina Willis is not presently relevant to that article. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm a member of The 110 Club and an editor on the Gerontology Wiki and I just wanted you to know that a user named Timothy McGuire has been vandalizing longevity pages on Gerontology Wiki and making death threats towards users. Robert Young has reported McGuire to the FBI but I was thinking this could be the same person that has vandalized longevity related articles on this site and threatened you and other editors. Anyway I'll just leave these links here so you can look into it yourself https://the110club.com/troll-alert-t23363.html?sid=a837b37f59df5e40d0645daea1fdcc1c#p40089958 https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Message_Wall:TheGalaxies567 . 103.236.151.4 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information. The behavior seems strikingly similar to me, and it would explain why the troll here on Wikipedia comes, vandalizes/threatens, and "goes away for a while" (typically when lengthy page protections have been put in place, hampering their activities). They just move between sites, it would seem. Goodness, this really explains a lot about the prolonged psychotic abuse I and others have been subjected to here, the numerous attempts to get me blocked, and the vandalism.... @The Blade of the Northern Lights and @zzuuzz Please read this thread. Is there any way information (ex. IP addresses) can be gathered or shared from the numerous examples of often violent-themed abuse we received to see if this is the same individual as on the Gerontology Wiki? It seems likely that it is the same perpetrator, and if so, the FBI has been involved in the past and apparently is likely to get involved again. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same person, who incidentally hit my talkpage last night. Not really sure the FBI will do a whole lot about that, although genuine death threats should be forwarded to local law enforcement. Recent checkuser data and the IP addresses used could potentially help as well (and I have an eye on this page in case things start up again). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights Thank you for the update. My thinking is that if the incidents can be linked using hard evidence, that hypothetically both helps us better understand what has been happening here on Wikipedia and adds to the body of evidence against the individual. If it is the same person, more evidence could prompt law enforcement to finally act, if an even small crime were committed at some point in all this (ex. someone just threatened to assassinate the head of the GRG, who reported it to the FBI, seems a good place to start). Newshunter12 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Hazel Plummer (born June 19, 1908) be added to the oldest living persons list. I am unsure of exactly what constitutes a "Reliable Source" but there are 2 reports about her 112th birthday that I consider credible: A Facebook post from the Congregational Church of Littleton, MA dated June 13, 2020 and a YouTube video of a parade in front of her nursing home to celebrate her 112th birthday during the COVID-19 crisis dated June 19, 2020. Would these be considered "Reliable Sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bromleychuck Hello, and thank you for the suggestion. Unfortunately, neither of the two above sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia, since they are social media. Neither is this, since it's a blog. Only newspaper articles, media reports, government reports, and GRG/GWR validation are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia for inclusion. I have actually already looked into trying to add Hazel Plummer (or rather re-add, since I once added her to list's hidden addendum, but later removed her as she no longer qualified for inclusion) before, but all her recent coverage, while extensive, falls into the crack of being considered unreliable. I don't doubt she is alive, but article quality standards must be upheld. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm interested in tracking longevity, and I noticed that Lucy Hannah had been removed due to a dispute in a scientific research book. When I reviewed their references, the latest one was from 2014 which is 6 years ago. Is there any way you can provide me with a secondary source that also disputes her longevity claim with more recent references? Validation of age is important but I just want to make sure the removal of her from the list is supported by more than one source. Thank you. 2600:8805:0:E65:5844:6001:5212:BFC8 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the research presented about Lucy Hannah in this book is being published for the first time, so you are mistaken it's all from six or more years ago or requires past corroboration. This fairly obscure topic moves at a glacial pace and since it involves personal information, document info and negative judgements on most age cases are typically kept private. This is a comprehensive, scientific de-construction of the Lucy Hannah case by top Gerontologists whose work we cite hundreds of times in the various supercentenarian articles. When reading this book section, one learns the Lucy Hannah validation was basically a mistake others in 2003 took at face value as true, but enough information was finally gathered to pass an official public judgement on the case, which was to debunk it. No claim was ever submitted for her and there was no media coverage of her whatsoever while alive; the only body that ever "backed" her case as true from their own research was one old general study by the Social Security Administration that goofed up.

This isn't like the "takedown" of Jeanne Calment that fell apart when it received its own scrutiny. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my concern. I just wanted to ensure history is protected and that validation of her age indeed had no legitimate standing. 2600:8805:0:E65:5844:6001:5212:BFC8 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of the oldest living people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came across an article that I believe confirms that Juliette Bilde is alive and has celebrated her 112th birthday. The article is from La Nouvelle Republique dated 20 October 2021. It can be found at: https://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/deux-sevres/commune/saint-loup-lamaire/les-112-ans-de-juliette-bilde-a-la-maison-de-retraite I was going to attempt an edit on the page but do not feel confident that I would be able to do it correctly. Thanks for the great job you are doing with this page.Bromleychuck (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this information and your kind words. I have just added her to the article with the source you provided. I do my best to keep the article updated, and your help is much appreciated. Feel free to make more suggestions any time. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've seen you active at Tfd's lately, in case you're interested in joining the task fore I started, Unused Templates Task Force, feel free to join and contribute. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, I just signed up. I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but would like to learn how to evaluate templates so that I could contribute nominations, and not just participate at others' TfD's. Using Template:Are Parish as an example, which is 490 on User:Jonesey95/unused templates list, no article links to it according to a What links here search and it was last edited by a human in 2013. Heck, the parish itself ceased to exist in 2017. Would this be a good template to nominate for TfD with a nom of: Abandoned and unused template for parish that ceased to exist in 2017.? Am I understanding the topic of templates correctly? Thank you for any guidance you can provide. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has now been nominated for deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's been a while since you've stepped down from the task force. Posting in case you aren't aware. All those Estonian Parish templates have been taken care of and we've made significant progress in reducing the backlog. On the main unused templates database report, redirects are now on the first page. You've played a helpful part with your due diligence. You're welcome to come back when you have time. Thank you for all you've done. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my grandmother from the 50 oldest living people in the US three days ago - but she is still alive! She resides at Hattie Ide Chaffee nursing home in East Providence RI and she is very much still alive at 113 and one month old.

Best regards, Her granddaughter, Beth Barton Rondeau 2600:8805:A000:4E00:B80B:3A9D:71B9:3602 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the one who originally added Barbara Barton in 2020. I recently removed her from the same article, List of the oldest living people, a list of the 50 oldest known people in the world. It was because her most recent reliable source was now over a year old. To be included in that article, there is a blanket requirement that individuals need to have a recent independent reliable source (newspaper article, media report, Japanese prefecture reports, GRG validation, etc) proving they are alive. Social media, blogs, forums, other wikis, and self-published sources are Never considered reliable sources for supercentenarians. Her most recent source was from mid-October 2020. If you provide a recent reliable source, I would be happy to re-add her. As for how you can acquire sourcing, since we already have reliable sourcing for her full name and date of birth, even just a little mention in a minor reliable source like, "Barbra Barton had a sprightly game of bingo Saturday at age 113 at..." would do, if that helps.

Please keep in mind that for many, reliable death coverage is never found; they just "fall off" the list like Barbra Barton just did, hence the mandatory rule.

On a related side note, please know that the topic of extreme longevity on Wikipedia has over the years been plagued by death hoaxes and hoaxes/vandalism of all kinds (most often from anonymous accounts like yours, which is why IP editors can no longer edit that article), so while I don't doubt your sincerity, please understand that private requests or private information will never be used to edit an article. For better or worse, on Wikipedia, we go only by what the reliable sources say. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Death Date of Alfred Smith in "List of British supercentenarians" showing as 3 August 2019 when his obituary in The Herald shows it as 4 August 2019. They also state that he had lived "111 years, 128 days", so their date is not a typo. Please refer to https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17841188.obituary-alf-smith-scotlands-oldest-man/. Thank you. Rklingmann (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TFBCT1 @Rklingmann So we are all on the same page, this is the first time I have seen the above source (which was created 12 days after I looked into this matter in 2019). It is in contradiction to the BBC, and Herald Scotland itself from August 4. These two articles stated he died on Saturday night, which would be August 3, 2019. They quoted a local official's tweet that he lived 111 years and 128 days, but as any calendar will tell you, he would need to have died on Sunday August 4 for that to be true. At the time, it seemed far more likely the local official was 1 day off in a tweet than multiple major sources wrong on "Saturday night vs. Sunday morning" for his death, and we don't use info from social media anyway. I thought that was what your post was alluding to and so ignored it.

Given your source came 12 days after the others, it likely had a better chance to get the facts right. I would support changing his death date to August 4, but I would note for the record sloppy journalism caused this issue, not any mistake of mine. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12 Can you make the changes since you are more qualified than I am? Rklingmann (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rklingmann List of British supercentenarians has been updated accordingly, including using the source you provided above. Thank you for your contributions to this topic on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article about Catherine Abate that lists her date of birth as 15 November 1909. https://wyrk.com/112-year-old-in-hamburg-shares-secret-to-a-long-life/ This makes her older than Asta Hasse who is #50 on the List of the Oldest Living People. My editing skills are limited so I thought I would send the information to you as you seem to be a seasoned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromleychuck (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable contribution @Bromleychuck. I haven't had much time to edit or research in recent months, but just seeing this now I have promptly added her to List of the oldest living people and List of Italian supercentenarians. You are correct that I am seasoned editor in this topic area, and your contributions are always welcome here. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]