User talk:Plyjacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next time you create an article, would you please take time to make your assertion of the subject's notability clear? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] LaJean Smith

Greetings,

Please note that the articles on LaJean Smith said she married '9 times' which makes this case prohibitively difficult...how can we find her in the 1900 census? However, given the potential contact info. I will check with the family to see if they have anything. Just don't expect results overnight...this process usually takes a while (given the huge number of cases to go through: I get about 200 messages/month that need to be processed).

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 07:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaJean Smith

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article LaJean Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of LaJean Smith. Cheers, CP 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Washington (Partially-validated supercentenarian)

A tag has been placed on Richard Washington (Partially-validated supercentenarian), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spgh.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spgh.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Swetland

Should Gladys Swetland, 113, be 'kept' or 'deleted' from Wikipedia? You can vote and/or comment here if you wish:

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

Ryoung122 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Spgh.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Spgh.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ffg.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ffg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Gfjfh_ruby.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gfjfh_ruby.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CO2 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Fggfg.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Muhammad edits

User Plyjacks, your recent edits to the Ruby Muhammad Wikipedia article violate the 'No Original Research' policy. The policy says that material must be sourced, and if self-published, that person must be an 'expert in the field, respected by their peers and published in books, journals, etc.' Please, would you like to show me your credentials that allow you to be an 'expert.' If not, I suggest taking any 'longevity claim' to the proper authority...which is Guinness World Records...whose current expert is...me. So, if you have a claim to make, feel free to make one, but don't make it FIRST on WIKIPEDIA. It must be made first elsewhere.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 23:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Greetings,

Whenever we are looking for matches in the census, we have to check several factors to be sure the listing is for the correct person. Note that Mr. Filipe Prista Lucas already found a likely 1920 census match (listing Ruby Greer as '15' years old), with the correct location (Sumter Co, GA) and several identifying factors, such as the right mother's name

Based on several reports, we know that she was born in

Sandersville, > Washington Co., named Ruby Macie Grayer, and raised in Americus, > Sumter Co. by a woman she believed was her aunt. With this > information, I believe I was able to locate a possible match in the > 1910 census. There, I found a Rubbie M Grier, aged 3 and living in > Americus, Sumter Co. with uncles Paul and Ida Howard. In the 1920 > census, I also found a Buby Greer (Ruby in the original) in Americus,

> Sumter Co., now living with her mother and aged 15.

So, if she was reported to be '15' in January 1920, that would make her born in 1904 and age 103. But since the 1910 census was written closer to the birth event, it is more likely to be true. And the April 1910 census lists her as age 3, which makes her 100 years old.

Note that Ms. Muhammad herself admits that she was 'illiterate until 1946' when she converted to the Nation of Islam and learned to read. So, can we expect someone that can't read and whose age is already distorted by 1920 to really know exactly how old she is? The bottom line: using the principles of proofs of birth (and not proofs of existence), the expert opinion is that she is '100 years old.' For the sake of some, we allow them to note that her 'claimed age' is 110...we call that a 'longevity claim.' But in reality, it's not likely to be true.

If, however, new evidence comes to light, feel free to contact someone such as myself, the GRG, Louis Epstein, etc. to investigate.

Sincerely Robert YoungRyoung122 23:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fggfg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fggfg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Habib Miyan

Plyjacks, although Habib Miyan 'now' claims birth in 1869, he previously claimed birth in 1872 and before that, 1878. Since he started with '1878' we're sticking with that one. Also, his 'ID document' (even though the name is of a different person) says '1878'. The bottom line: the claim is ludicrous, and he can't even keep his story straight.Ryoung122 08:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the Oldest-Old or Final Few notable?

Thanks for the comments, but you have to click on the 'this article's entry' to post a comment on the AFD page. Your comment was just pasted on the 'talk' page.

Regards Robert

Greetings, User Brown-Haired Girl has waged a campaign to wipe out the entire 'supercentenarians' field on Wikipedia. This has included:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28longevity_claims_researcher%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Epstein_%28supercentenarian_tracker%29

And, even, a man dead over 100 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thoms

I find it incredulous that one would attack even the man who invented the term 'folklore' and started the field of 'supercentenarian tracking.'

Such mass hysteria seems to be working. User BHG is one of the top-10 editors by edit count on Wikipedia and has lots of friends. I can't imagine most WWI veteran articles surviving if this trend continues. I do urge everyone who considers tracking the oldest-old, whether WWI vets or no, to chime in on these debates.

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Nestor at 115.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Nestor at 115.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby Muhammad

Please review the concept of Wikipedia:No original research. Until this material is published in third party, independent reliable sources, we cannot accept original research on any article, and especially none in those articles that fall under the aegis of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living people. Cheers, CP 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add original research regarding the biographies of living people to Wikipedia, you WILL be blocked. Please understand that we cannot include such material until it is published in third party, independent reliable sources. Cheers, CP 23:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I also suggest not conducting personal attacks off-wiki, as you did on the World's Oldest People Forum. Please understand that Wikipedia can only report what is verifiable from reliable sources, it is NOT a repository for original research: yours or anyone else's. Also, I note that it's very difficult to yell at someone on a talk page, especially when they uses words like "please." Cheers, CP 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plyjacks, it should be noted that in the context of what Wikipedia calls a "realiable source" (ie/ WP:RS) the source you added is not considered to be one. Now the information that is on that unrealiable source may be correct, but in the context of an encyclopedia until that information becomes more mainstream (ie/ by appearing in more realiable sources) in cannot be used. This isn't the fault of Wikipedia, instead is a fault found in inherently unnotable material that appears in Wikipedia. Until these items become more mainstream, they will almost always suffer this fate. What needs to happen with Ruby (say) is that her real DOB should be published more widely and reported as such rather than it appearing in a obscure web resource. Thanks Shot info 05:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have opened up a request for comment on a discussion that you had been previously involved in regarding Ruby Muhammad. If you wish to participate, your input would be highly valued, and you may comment here. Cheers, CP 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Yoip

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alberto Yoip, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Alberto Yoip. Cheers, CP 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Item of interest

see this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's so, you need to reply to that effect on that commons thread. If you don't have a commons account, create one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Teene

Email me and let me know a bit more about you, and why Terry would want to hear from you and I will gladly send you the most recent address I have for him. (a Tyler, Texas address). I hope you understand that I try to respect everyone's privacy. User:Pedant (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want Terry Teene's address, set your wikipedia settings so that I can email it to you. User:Pedant (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to send you email through this link to avoid revealing my own email address. If you want me to give you Terry Teene's address, set your wikipedia settings so that I can email it to you. User:Pedant (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that our other contributor on the Ronald McDonald article, Hank, may be a troll; I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

It doesn't matter whether Willard Scott says he created Ronald, there is a contemporaneous record that shows that Ronald existed before Willard created him. I've seen the newspaper photograph and caption, and the original costume. User:Pedant (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)