User talk:Frank/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:13, 1 May 2010

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Frank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

CSD

thanks for the message but it looks like someone else decided not to wait. NtheP (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Re: Crouch-DeVries) You're right, but I disagree with that deletion and said so. Frank | talk 17:05, 6 April 2010

Nightrider (DC Comics)

I am trying to put the character bio in my own words. You just deleted a half-hours' work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspur23 (talk • contribs)

It was a copy-paste WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. Frank | talk 11:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"This Stuff is Not Encyclopedic at All"

This is an example of what is WRONG with Wikipedia. You deleted this material by claiming "this stuff is not encyclopedic at all":

It should be noted that some cases come from nations (such as the United Kingdom) with compulsory birth registration and a central government register of documents; these cases are more than 90% likely to be eventually verified.^{[citation needed]}^{[original research?]} Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of verification will be small (less than 10%).^{[citation needed]}^{[original research?]} Since cases of persons just turning 110 are often less likely to be processed, the reader can infer that cases nearer the top of the list are less likely to be verified.^{[original research?]} For example, if someone is now listed as age 112, the case had more than two years to produce sufficient evidence of age. In addition, studies have shown that the validation rate for cases decreases, the higher the age claimed (in part because the true cases, if younger than the false/exaggerated claims, will be more likely to die first).^{[citation needed]} Thus, this list can be viewed, inferentially, as a sliding scale of believability.^{[original research?]}

Yet I am offering my expertise in this area. In fact, I have material soon to be published that will show this to be true. I suppose the world can wait until it reaches journal publication. That does NOT mean, however, that this is not encyclopedic. It should be obvious, really, that the higher the age claimed, the less likely it is to be true. Why? Let's consider a hypothetical situation.

We have 30 people claiming to be 110. Of these, 20 are 110; 7 are 109; 2 are 100 and one is 90 years old. Who is most-likely to die first? If the death rate at 110 is 50% and at 90 or 100 it is closer to 25-30%, and we go one year later, it statistically more likely that some of the real 110-year-olds died first.

Suppose, one year later, of the 30 people, we now have 20. Of these, one is 91, 2 are 101, and four are 110. 13 are 111. The number of "real" people aged 111 is now 65%, down from 67% a year earlier.

Eventually, the number of real people drop rapidly. Let's say five year later, we now have three people left: all the 111-year-olds have died; the three remaining are 115 (but claiming 116); 106 (but claiming 116); and 96 (but claiming 116). By this point, none of the claims are true (validation rate 0%), although one is close to being true.

Even in the USA, more than 99% of claims to age 116+ are false...imagine how bad the records from places like India are, where "136" year-olds turn out to be 100 years old (as actually happened).

Ryoung122 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit and edit summary. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding that comment in specific and how Wikipedia works in general. I am not saying that what is written is incorrect; what I'm saying is that when there are seven tags on a single paragraph, it is by definition not encyclopedic. I can add to those tags: It should be noted is WP:WEASEL wording; one can infer and the reader can infer are most certainly not encyclopedic wording (rather, they sound like academic papers and personal opinion); and the phrase studies have shown cries out for a {{fact}} tag.

You understand verifiability in general, and I believe more specifically that you understand WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If you find that to be something WRONG with Wikipedia, there's not a whole lot I can personally do about it; such a feeling runs counter to how Wikipedia works and is unlikely to get much traction. That you are a recognized expert in your field is not in question; neither is it relevant. The information must be verifiable with appropriate citations from reliable sources. Frank | talk 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :<small>(Re: [[Crouch-DeVries]])</small> You're right, but I disagree with that deletion and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Accounting4Taste&diff=354351512&oldid=354336111 said so]. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:05, 6 April 2010
+== [[Nightrider (DC Comics)]] ==
+I am trying to put the character bio in my own words. You just deleted a half-hours' work. {{unsigned|Hotspur23}}
+:It was a copy-paste [[WP:CSD#G12]] copyright violation. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 11:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
+== "This Stuff is Not Encyclopedic at All" ==
+This is an example of what is WRONG with Wikipedia. You deleted this material by claiming "this stuff is not encyclopedic at all":
+It should be noted that some cases come from nations (such as the United Kingdom) with compulsory birth registration and a central government register of documents; these cases are more than 90% likely to be eventually verified.{{Citation needed|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of verification will be small (less than 10%).{{Citation needed|date=March 2010}}{{Or|date=March 2010}} Since cases of persons just turning 110 are often less likely to be processed, the reader can infer that cases nearer the top of the list are less likely to be verified.{{Or|date=March 2010}} For example, if someone is now listed as age 112, the case had more than two years to produce sufficient evidence of age. In addition, studies have shown that the validation rate for cases decreases, the higher the age claimed (in part because the true cases, if younger than the false/exaggerated claims, will be more likely to die first).{{Citation needed|date=March 2010}} Thus, this list can be viewed, inferentially, as a sliding scale of believability.{{Or|date=March 2010}}
+Yet I am offering my expertise in this area. In fact, I have material soon to be published that will show this to be true. I suppose the world can wait until it reaches journal publication. That does NOT mean, however, that this is not encyclopedic. It should be obvious, really, that the higher the age claimed, the less likely it is to be true. Why? Let's consider a hypothetical situation.
+We have 30 people claiming to be 110. Of these, 20 are 110; 7 are 109; 2 are 100 and one is 90 years old. Who is most-likely to die first? If the death rate at 110 is 50% and at 90 or 100 it is closer to 25-30%, and we go one year later, it statistically more likely that some of the real 110-year-olds died first.
+Suppose, one year later, of the 30 people, we now have 20. Of these, one is 91, 2 are 101, and four are 110. 13 are 111. The number of "real" people aged 111 is now 65%, down from 67% a year earlier.
+Eventually, the number of real people drop rapidly. Let's say five year later, we now have three people left: all the 111-year-olds have died; the three remaining are 115 (but claiming 116); 106 (but claiming 116); and 96 (but claiming 116). By this point, none of the claims are true (validation rate 0%), although one is close to being true.
+Even in the USA, more than 99% of claims to age 116+ are false...imagine how bad the records from places like India are, where "136" year-olds turn out to be 100 years old (as actually happened).
+[[User:Ryoung122|<span style="color:red">Ryoung</span><span style="color:blue">122</span>]] 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
+:I assume you are referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&diff=prev&oldid=354402298 this edit and edit summary]. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding that comment in specific and how Wikipedia works in general. I am not saying that what is written is incorrect; what I'm saying is that when there are seven tags on a single paragraph, it is by definition ''not encyclopedic''. I can add to those tags: ''It should be noted'' is [[WP:WEASEL]] wording; ''one can infer'' and ''the reader can infer'' are most certainly not encyclopedic wording (rather, they sound like academic papers and personal opinion); and the phrase ''studies have shown'' cries out for a {{tl|fact}} tag.
+:You understand verifiability in general, and I believe more specifically that you understand [[WP:V]], which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If you find that to be something ''WRONG'' with Wikipedia, there's not a whole lot I can personally do about it; such a feeling runs counter to how Wikipedia works and is unlikely to get much traction. That you are a recognized expert in your field is not in question; neither is it relevant. The information must be verifiable with appropriate [[WP:CITE|citations]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)