User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your name

Hi, I noticed a number of your votes in AFD. Could you please remember to sign your posts so that we know who's doing nominations and casting votes? Thanks. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

David Wong article on AfD

Hey Ryoung122 - I noticed your comments on the above Afd voting page. I just wanted to encourage you in your obvious passion for keeping articles clean and factual. By the same token though, I think your input would benefit from toning things down a bit. More flies with honey, and all that. I agree with you that the David Wong article is vanity, and that there's something distinctly odd about its supporters on the Afd page. But part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars is that we should assume good faith on the part of all editors, anonymous ones included. Even if these are bad-faith edits in fact, we should all still avoid feeding the trolls. In the end, if both you and I (along with others in the Afd thread) noticed something wrong, then we can trust that one of the admins will too. Cheers, and happy wiki-ing! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

HTML, signatures, and so on

My apologies for the delayed response, but somehow I completely missed your addition to my talk page. Please excuse my tardiness. Are you still looking for assistance in creating a signature?

→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 17:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In order to activate the "custom signature" feature, you need to click on "my preferences" at the top of your screen. On the resulting page, check the "Raw signature" box. Right above the "Raw signature" box is a text box labelled "Nickname". You will need to create an HTML signature and place that signature into the "Nickname" box.

For example, the raw HTML code for my signature is:

→ [[User:Extreme Unction|<font face="arial, helvetica" color="#ff0000"><b><i>Ξxtreme</i></b></font> <font color="#006688" face="arial, helvetica">Unction</font>]] {<font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">^{[[User talk:Extreme Unction|yak]]}</font><font face="arial, helvetica">ł</font><font face="arial, helvetica" size="0">_{[[Special:Contributions/Extreme Unction|blah]]}</font>}

All of that text is pasted into the "Nickname" box under "my preferences". When I sign a comment with ~~~~, the wiki software automatically replaces the ~~~~ with → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask. ΞU

---

Well, you seem to be getting the hang of things. However, obviously, you probably don't want a signature that mimics mine exactly. Or, I dunno, maybe you do. But in the event that you don't, here are some useful things to note:

<font color="#XXXXXX"></font> will change the color of whatever's between those two tags to whatever value XXXXXX is. Each individual "X" in that tag can tak on any single number 0-9 and also any letter A-F.

The first two X's in that tag represent the Red value. The value ranges from "00" (which is black) to "FF" which is BRIGHT RED. Intermediate values give different shades of red, e.g.:

Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme

The middle pair of X's represents Green in the same way. Example follows:

Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme

And, finally, the final pair of X's represents Blue.

Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme

You can mix up these pairs of numbers to any value, as long as each digit is between 0-9 and A-F. Thus:

Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme Ξxtreme

If you click the "Edit this page" link above, and then scroll down to this section, you'll be able to see the actual codes, which will give you a direction to go in when you play with the colors.

As for testing your sigs, what I do when I want to make a change to mine is to go to my own talk page and click the "+" button at the top (next to "Edit this page"). I make all the changes I need to make there, and then click "Show preview" instead of "Save page". That will let me look at my signature and make any adjustments without saving the repeated edits to my page.

As always, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have. ΞU

Willow Oak

Nice page start! - just to let you know, I've rejigged the layout a fair bit to get it into the same general format as other tree articles (natural distribution and botanical description first, then cultivation and uses, etc., after), also added some more info, mostly from the Flora of North America (an excellent source for info on North American plants, very reliable) - MPF 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

what was lifespan moved to maximum life span

I moved lifespan to maximum life span, since people more often link to lifespan when they mean the average. However, I also made lifespan a disambiguation page, as I found a couple people who linked to it when they meant maximum life span. Furthermore, I disambiguated links to lifespan where it was clear which was meant. Hopefully this will ameliorate further confusion about the terms. Intangir 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Thanks for updating supercentenarian with the confirmation for Capovilla. Sorry about running over some of your edits; I'll leave the tables to you. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

But there is an article on Guayaquil, so you can click on this link to learn that it is in Ecuador, so that's exactly why I deleted it, dear Robert. Bart Versieck 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Longevity

Would you be able to take a look at the Longevity article? PMA 21:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed table for surviving WWI Vets

Hi Robert, I would like your thoughts on a new layout table that I have proposed in Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I#Present_data_in_a_table? - Rye1967 05:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, the main issue is can such a table be edited often? It may be better to table-ize the deceased, since the living lists change so often. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as easy to delete an entry as in the current list except that the alternate background shading means all succeeding rows have to be edited when one is removed. Personally, the 'surviving' list is the more interesting, the one I read most often, and the table will make that easier to read. The deceased could also be tablized but I don't have time to do that right now. - Rye1967 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bettie Wilson

Did you see my edit summary? Ardric47 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redundant Category

As I said on my talk page (please forgive me if you have seen it there; I never know if other people watch user talk pages on which they comment): I suppose that makes sense, but the shouting and edit summaries, such as [1], seem a bit unnecessary (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), especially since that happened weeks ago. Sincerely, Ardric47 04:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Christina_Cock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Christina_Cock.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maria_Capovilla.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maria_Capovilla.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuts to Oldest people opening paragraph

Hi, I have put a (long!) explanation of the cuts you reverted in Talk:Oldest people. I need to know what you think is 'too much' and what is 'enough'.--Rye1967 08:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will respond to some of them. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maria_Capovilla_2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Maria_Capovilla_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mitoyo_Kawate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitoyo_Kawate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Remaining Maria Capovilla image

Hi Robert, Carnildo has replied to me and said that one can use the 'Edit' feature on the image page to add source and copyright info. The one remaining Maria image [[Image:Maria Ester de Capovilla.jpg]] is listed for deletion. It was uploaded by you in Feb so if you could edit and add the source info and then remove the no-source msg, that would save it -- Rye1967 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

You should be ashamed of yourself, giving a 'recommendation' for OrphanBot. OrphanBot has removed many images which followed the rules at the time of their upload, and undid much FREE, VOLUNTEER work that is now rendered a complete waste of time. Thanks for making Wikipedia a worse place.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In future, please leave new messages at the bottom of my talk page.

Please give an example of, say, five of these images and the pages they were removed from. I will review them and let you know if my endorsement still stands. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about the images for Maria Capovilla (1 and 2), Christina Cock, Mitoyo Kawate, and Yone Minagawa. Again, there are several objections here.

1. It is not fair to place a 'computer program' against volunteer work of humans. In these cases, the computer will invariably win. Are you paying us? What 'fair use'?

2. OrphanBot uses 'guilty until proven innocent' technology, giving only 7 days to fix a problem. Worse, the default value is delete. Suppose someone went on vacation for 30 days? Or suppose someone did some great work, but died? Their work shouldn't automatically be deleted under any circumstance. Work should only be deleted when it is deemed inappropriate.

3. I thought this was a .org site, not .com. Wikipedia's increased focus on licensing suggests an illegitimate attempt to sell images.

4. Even the courts have ruled that Google thumbnails are not copyvio. Yet Christina Cock (114-year-old woman) a 7K photo, is to be deleted. Who loses? Anyone who reads the article and no longer can see the photo, that's who.

5. Wikipedia is messing with ex post facto violations. If the image were not uploaded according to the rules at the time, why did they last for several months or years before being deleted? Changing the policy now doesn't change the policy then.

6. In the case of Maria Capovilla 1, the copyright holder (China Daily) was specified, yet the image was deleted anyway.

7. While you're at it, check out the Moses Hardy photo. Maybe you need to take that one down.

THE BOTTOM LINE: WIKIPEDIA'S 'IMAGE UPLOAD' SYSTEM IS BURDENSOME AND INADEQUATE AND A WASTE OF TIME. TO THEN EXPECT PEOPLE TO RE-UPLOAD IMAGES THAT NEWSPAPERS COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT IS RIDICULOUS. LAST I CHECKED, I DON'T SEE ANYONE ADDING A NEW MARIA CAPOVILLA IMAGE. I'M WAITING ON SOMEONE 'RESPONSIBLE' TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE ORPHANBOT HAS DONE. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE WIKIPEDIA A LEGAL CONUNDRUM, THEN FIX THE PROBLEMS YOURSELF INSTEAD OF TELLING OTHERS TO DO IT WHILE GIVING LITTLE STARS TO THOSE WHO TEAR DOWN THE WORK OF OTHERS.

GOOD DAY.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia is not the United States and does not need to practice an innocent until proven guilty concept, and that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and non-free images conflict with that aim.

Please also remember to read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. What do you mean, 'non-free' images. These images were uploaded freely. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

The "yak" link in your signature currently (well, as at May 25) links to someone else's talk page, and the "talk" link to that person's contributions. Aside from the confusion caused by "talk" not linking to someone's talk page may not be a good thing either. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Christina Cock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Christina Cock.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. The source alone will not suffice. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Longevity Claims

Robert, capping on-topic persons at 113 is fine. In an effort to maintain the article creator's vision of relevant parameters (to wit: "The claimed age must be at least 110 but less than 130 years old. Because the number of claims would be too large, claims to less than 110 are excluded." in talk page) I included those 110-112. I wanted to limit random editors from changing the scope of the article (I didn't realize the unsigned change was you). As article creator I defer to your judgement. Acctorp 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make clear...that age '110' was just a general reference to, in theory, to people aged 110-130. But in practice, it makes sense for a cutoff of 113+. This is also a good cutoff point because the main point of the article are people who claim to be older than the 'official' titleholders. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldest people intro para

Hi Robert, I introduced the agreed intro paragraph and you have reverted it and the preceeding contribution, with a comment referring to the age of Moses Hardy, which was the subject of the earlier contribution only. Therefore can I assume that you did not mean to remove the new intro paragraph?--Rye1967 07:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That was mainly about Moses Hardy. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Living Males

Hi,

You changed the table of oldest living males, but I can't find any verifiable source information for numbers 8 and 9. What's strange is that a site you regularly contribute to, www.grg.org, does not support the changes you have made. Being that the tables were updated last on June 1, numbers 8 and 9 should already be present on the table. If you've got some evidence for the claims of these two gentlemen, please present it so that the Wikipedia community can verify it. Otherwise, we'll have to revert it back to a proven Top 10.

Thank you, Canadian Paul 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Joan Riudavets.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Joan Riudavets.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Google images" is not a source. —Bkell (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's where I got it from, so it's a 'source.' → R Young {^yakł_talk} 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to delete Joan Riudavets-Moll's photograph, I won't try to stop you. But I will say this: Wikipedia is a lesser place due to people like you, who take the time to delete the work of others (destruction) but won't take the time to build (construction). You can easily run a search on "Google Images" and find out where that photo came from. Stop being lazy. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 16:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the uploader of every image to clearly specify an exact source. This is to prevent copyright violations on Wikipedia. "Google images" is not a source, because it was not the Google Image Search that created the image. Other editors do not have time to do a Google image search, and they shouldn't have to, because the uploader should specify the source. Additionally, the results returned for a Google image search can change drastically from day to day.

I am not trying to delete images from Wikipedia. I am trying to prevent copyright violations. All you need to do as the uploader is to specify the source of the image. If you cannot be bothered to do that within the seven days you are given, then by Wikipedia policy the image may be deleted (please see the criteria for speedy deletion of images, number 4). Please let me know if I can help you in any way.

Also, please consider fixing your signature so that the "yak" link actually goes somewhere useful, and please don't call your contributions link "talk". Moreover, your "yak" and "talk" links don't lead to any pages associated with your username (Ryoung122); they go to pages for the users "RYoung" and "Ryoung" respectively. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to try to help you, I did a Google image search for "Joan Riudavets-Moll". The first result was this image, which appears to be the image you used. Now, what is the source of this image? The source is not Google Image Search. Google Image Search is only a tool that was used to find the image; it is not the source of the image itself. Saying that Google Image Search is the source of this image is like saying that the card catalog is the source of any information you would find in a library.

So, what is the source of this image? The source is the page that Google Image Search returns: http://elpais.disoft.es/2004/03/06/index.html. But even this might not be the original source of the image. This Web page may have got the image from another Web page, or scanned it from a magazine, or so on.

Scrolling down this page to where the image is found, we see the caption, "Fotografía de archivo del 2 de Octubre de 2003 de Joan Riudavets Moll, el día en que fue reconocido como el hombre más viejo del mundo." If you do not read Spanish, that says "Archive photograph from 2 October 2003 of Joan Riudavets Moll, the day on which he was recognized as the oldest man in the world."

So it's an archive photograph. Whose archives? Well, there is a notation in the upper right corner of the section with this photograph which says "EFE". Maybe this is a news agency. Sure enough, a Google search for "EFE" turns up Agencia EFE, which appears to be a Spanish news agency. I think we've found our original source. So on the image description page, we need to give EFE as the original source. We should also give a link to the Agencia EFE home page, and also to the page on which we first found the image, so that other people can follow our steps to confirm our claim.

The problem now, however, is that Wikipedia needs permission to use copyrighted images, and this image is almost certainly copyrighted (by EFE, the news agency who created it). If we do not have permission, then it is possible that we can use it under a claim of fair use; see Wikipedia:Fair use. However, in the counterexamples section, we see that one example of a use that is not acceptable as fair use is "a photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." This is exactly what we have here: a photo from a press agency (in this case, EFE), being used to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo. So a fair-use claim won't work.

One option we have at this point is to ask EFE to release this image under a free license such as the GFDL (note that simply getting permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough; see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). The other option is to have the image deleted.

The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use in any way. For this reason, and to comply with United States copyright law, we cannot simply take and use copyrighted images without permission. Most images on the Internet are copyrighted, so we cannot just take the first image we find using Google Image Search and place it in an article. Again, if you need help or have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If we continue to follow the "Más información" ("More information") links from the page returned by Google Image Search, we eventually arrive at http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporgen/20040306elpepuage_1/Tes, which is a copy of the actual news article from which this photograph came. A link to this news article would probably be the most specific indication of the original source. But again, Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted images unless they have been released under a free license, or unless the use of the image qualifies as fair use; but the use of this image doesn't qualify as fair use, and there's no evidence that it has been released under a free license.

I see from your user page that you work for Guinness World Records as the gerontology consultant. Does Guinness hold the copyright to a photograph of Joan Riudavets-Moll? If so, would Guinness be willing to release the image under a free license? —Bkell (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

I mentioned this above, but let me say it again. Please consider fixing your signature so that the "yak" link actually goes somewhere useful, and please don't call your contributions link "talk". Moreover, your "yak" and "talk" links don't lead to any pages associated with your username (Ryoung122); they go to pages for the users "RYoung" and "Ryoung" respectively. —Bkell (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States cities by population

I have set up a Request for Comment on the List of United States cities by population talk page. Please feel free to add a statement to the RfC. Kaldari 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Christian Mortensen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Christian Mortensen.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 14:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Marie Esther Capovilla

You recently claimed that she had died today on her page. Do you have any proof? Weatherman90 21:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/6275 Extremely sexy 23:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

George Johnson (supercentenarian)

Is there any specific reason that it needs to be said Johnson didn't have children twice? You reverted my change where I removed the redundant sentence reading "He never had any children of his own." Two sentences earlier it already says this:

"Johnson moved to San Francisco, California with his wife in 1935. They never had any children (possibly due to an injury George had suffered as a teenager)."

Secondly, please note that Category:Supercentenarians is being obviated by Category:American supercentenarians where appropriate. There is no need for this type of superfluous categorization; I have also removed your personal attacks from my talk page, do not replace them under any circumstances. Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, because I also already told him this before, but he wouldn't listen to me (when I added the English Supercentenarians category and deleted the Supercentenarians one in the process). Extremely sexy 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a well defined consensus not to overcategorize. R. Young, if you or anyone else in your Yahoo! message group needs to count numbers from a category please make use of the CatScan or CategoryTree tools described below by Bainer. Show civility towards others and please work within our consensus defined policies and guidelines. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Supercentenarians

Hello, I noticed you've been having some arguments with other users about categorisation of articles about supercentenarians. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Categorization, and Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. Those pages suggest that articles usually shouldn't be placed in both a category and its subcategory, and here there is no compelling reason to tag articles with the supercentenarians category when there is already a more specific category by nationality.

Note that if you are interested in counting the number of articles in the supercentenarians category, you can use the CatScan tool or the CategoryTree tool running on the Toolserver. That method prevents redundant categorisation. --bainer (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism

You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for vandalizing the following categories: Category:American supercentenarians [2], Category:British supercentenarians [3], Category:German supercentenarians [4], Category:Italian supercentenarians [5], Category:Japanese supercentenarians [6], et cetera. By reviewing your talk page, I see that on many occasions people have tried to work with you on this specific issue, citing consensus-formed policies and guidelines, and you have responded by either ignoring them or insulting them. [7] I realize your concerns (which have been addressed) and the value you bring to Wikipedia, but editing in this manner is unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and style guidelines posted above. Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)