"

 Mother Jones 

I am puzzled why you removed:

 Elliott J. Gorn, Mother Jones: The Most Dangerous Woman in America, 2001, ISBN 0-8090-7094-4

...from the Mother Jones article, describing your action as removing ""biased POV edits."" Although i'm not familiar with the book, the reference to Mother Jones as ""The Most Dangerous Woman in America"" was a common one. I believe that her supporters were not offended by such a description; they were working people who felt abused by the economic system, and they relished such a claim. This is not to say that your edit was improper; i'd have to read the book to know more. But if your edit resulted from use of this phrase, and for no other reason, then it was (in my view) mistaken about the general perception of that description. I say this as a strong Mother Jones supporter and fan.

best wishes,  

Raymond Cambefort
I do not gainsay he was a french soldier during WWI ; I just wanted to add that he was not one of the last ""official"" French WWI vet  this last point may be important cuz there is not a while that the French government has approved a state funeral for the last ""official one"" to die... and I think the reader has to be aware of it, that's all. Sincerily.  

 Matt Sanchez 

A request for consensus about what to do about some changes you recently reverted has been posted at Talk:Matt Sanchez.  Thanks,  

 Oldest people 

Hi, I see you've reverted my changes with the comment ""current format has better visual appeal; Wikipedia is not paper"". I'm trying to understand but all I can make of this is a statement of personal taste, and I'm not convinced. Can we try to compare arguments? To me there are two disadvantages to the old format: 1. it contains duplicate information (the ""To"" column, saying when someone lost the status of oldest person, is always — necessarily so — equal to the person's day of death); 2. it actually is less appealing to me because the information fills more space and there are many line breaks. It looks more tidy in my version. I'm therefore rather surprised at your change. Thanks for a reply. –  

Please note that if we did the table in 'real-time' and not reconstructed history, we would have people like Charlotte Benkner lose the title when someone older was found, not when they died. Thus, it could technically be different.

Second, I realize it is not absolutely necessary; however, I do think a little redundancy is OK. Visually, if the cases are too close together, then their time with the title looks insignificant. {yakłtalk} 

Did you have to create my user page just in order to respond? (My talk page did exist.) I was going to create it eventually, but in my own tome. How do I get it deleted again now (not just empty but deleted)? Such thoughtlessness really makes me angry. I've copied your comment here and I'm asking you to continue the debate on this page.

I was aware of the theoretical argument you made. You say yourself that it doesn't apply as you it is a retroactive version. Your visual argument I think I understand. Are you saying that with your version each table entry is a two-liner whereas in mine some entries take up one line and some two? –  

PS: I've since found out how to request my user page to be deleted, so I'm no longer looking for guidance on that. –  

Ah, it's worked already. – 

How would I go about finding out..?
Hi there. It's good to get in contact with you again. I have a question relating to a couple of problems I have relating to Wikipedia articles I have seen (and in some cases, even, written). Yours was the first name I thought of when consideirng this question and whether you could help me further.

Let's take an article such as Horace Wass, for example, which I wrote from information available on the Internet. The Wikipedia article, as well as the source from which I received the information with which I wrote the