`  ==Mentoring?==  Thanks for the offer of 'mentoring'. I do believe I can improve in certain areas, particularly formatting and personal relations. That said, I do feel like the current climate is 'patently unfair'. There are a number of issues:   1. Pooh-poohing the entire field:  We can start with calling the 'supercentenarian' word a 'neologism'. Completely unfounded. Wikipedia has embraced 'junk' like Nuyorican while pooh-poohing legitimately-sourced material. Others, such as BHG and MLA, have said the field is 'not notable'. Funny, the U.S. government is spending millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund research in this area. Simply because it may be unknown to the average person does not make it 'not notable' or, further, 'unimportant.'  Google hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 29,400 for supercentenarian. (0.17 seconds)  Ok, not a big subject, but a subject, nonetheless.  Attempts to raze every article from A Ross Eckler Jr, William Thoms, Habib Miyan, etc simply shows a pattern of 'witch-hunting.' True, part of the problem is that I have a tendency to use too much vinegar and not enough honey. But it's not my style to sell out. Those that get to know me, know I am a reasonable person WHEN TREATED FAIRLY.  However, the current climate has been far from fair.  2. Pooh-poohing me, and/or my research:  Both times my personal article was nominated for deletion, the nomination came as 'retribution' from a dispute involving other articles or categories, such as Mary Ramsey Wood and Category:supercentenarian trackers. I note that persons like BHG 'smoothly' canvass and campaign for their position. Questionable activities included:  A. Initially calling me names B. Making comments that suggested I was a liar, when the facts showed I was correct C. Listing the AFD in the inappropriate category D. Deleting my initial responses E. Collapsing additional responses into little boxes F. Not admitting mistakes when I found evidence that she was wrong G. Notifying the ANI and users such as KittyBrewster in such as way as to 'let people know' which way to 'not vote' H. Using the !vote commentary I. Surreptiously signing up for my group, with the ill-purpose of 'reporting' me on Wikipedia. J. Using a 'talk-down-to'tone  The current controversy really flared up when I told BHG that I was the 'world's leading expert,' an assertion that, while disputable to some, really stands up to scrutiny.  True, some positives: I've done enough to be blocked already, which hasn't happened (yet). SOME attempts were made at conciliation. But, far too much, the current activities have included a tribalistic cabal.   The complete and utter irony of the whole thing is Wikipedia's 'virtual-reality world' that has a complete disdain for reality. A source no less respected than Time Magazine said this:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986874,00.html?iid=chix-sphere  PASSING THE TORCH The death of Jeanne Calment caused a stir among centenarians: Who would claim the title of world's oldest person? Calls inundated the offices of The Guinness Book of World Records, official arbiter of longevity. Herewith a few of the candidates in the vintage sweepstakes:  CHRISTIAN MORTENSEN, 114 PROOF: Danish birth registration. BRUSH WITH HISTORY: Sailed to Ellis Island in 1903 on a ship named the United States. VICE: A nice fat cigar. ODDS: Clearly the Establishment pick, but in this crowd he may be just a young 'un.  That was 1997, before I was formally with Guinness. Thus to claim ``conflict of interest`` in every situation is clearly ignoring reality. Is Time Magazine 'not a reliable source'?  Clearly, my message is correct; perhaps we need another messenger. So, if someone like yourself (and, please, get a few more backups as well) that BOTH understand Wikipedia AND understand supercentenarians, could help in this regard, it would be most appreciated.  I note that every major (Western) news source is on my side, from BBC, ABC, NBC, etc.  In this case, this seems, in reality, to be a battle of 'expertism' vs. 'mob rule.' In the same way that the Romans crucified Jesus and freed Barabbas the slave, so the masses say, that's what happens. It doesn't make it right, in the least. And often, when cultural/historical wrongs are made, future generations look upon them negatively (such as McCarthyism, Salem Witchcraft Trials, etc). Fortunately, Wikipedia is only 'virtual' reality. No one is really being killed here. But it does seem that what is supposed to be an encyclopedia has instead devolved into a social experiment, where what matters is NOT right or wrong, verifiability, sourcing, or the like: what matters is building power through User ID's, alliances, etc.  My 'downfall' seems to be engaging too many 'battles' at once. Like Harold II, who repelled the Vikings only to fall to the Normans. What to do now?  Now, already, the world's #2 expert on supercentenarians, Louis Epstein, dropped out of Wikipedia. Should I be next? Should we give this to the masses?   Here's what should happen:  1. A 'take-a-break' time.  User BHG should take a break from nominating or tagging supercentenarian-related articles, at least for a week or two. So far she has been relentless, going through Category:supercentenarians, Robert Young, Louis Epstein, A Ross Eckler, Oldest living person by US state, William Thoms, Habib Miyan, etc. I also note that she has stated an aunt lived to 110 and wanted to maintain 'privacy'. Thus, there could be a personal interest/bias if she is an 'anonymist' and doesn't want information out in the public realm. True, one has the right to be anonymous, but don't impose your standards on everyone else.  Starting more fires won't solve anything. Let's wait until the current CFD, AFD disputes are resolved before starting more problems.  2. User BHG should apologize for some of her comments to me personally, and I would reciprocate. Comments such as it's 'increasingly hard to believe anything he says' are completely out of line. Claiming that reference links didn't mention me, when they clearly did, were flat-out falsehoods on her part. Deleting notations that showed she was wrong is both COI and questionable conduct. I realize, however, that since she has built up a powerful cadre of Wiki-friends, standing the way of someone so powerful here may be pushing a rock uphill. Thus, a different strategy is needed. However, we need one that ensures that Wikipedia reflects what the greater world knowledge shows, not the other way around.  3. I realize there is a negotiation between article creation and deletion. A lot of 'supercentenarian fans' want to create articles such as this:  Marie-Rose Mueller which I agree is hard to defend. Maybe she is notable, but Wikipedia may not agree. Some articles, such as Sukesburo Nakanishi, have already gone by the wayside. So, where do we draw the line? I have already suggested policies. A supercentenarian should be considered 'notable' if they are covered in multiple, independent sources, especially outside of their hometown. I generally favor those aged 112+ for inclusion and those under 112 as tossups, depending on how much coverage they received. No one would delete Henry Allingham, for example. So, clearly 'age' alone is not the issue, but 'charisma'. If that person is charismatic, they may make themselves notable.  4. Words by others, such as 'vanispamcruft', help no one. Given that, on closer inspection, the charges are false. SPAM involves mass-marketing. I have not done that. Vanity? The article, as I wrote my autobiography, was deemed 'fair' by several third-party persons, and it seems the current AFD didn't focus on that. Instead, the issue boiled down to WP:BIO. The bottom line: others claimed that my mentions in the news amounted to 'trivial' mention. I disagree. If someone cites you as the 'expert' or 'authority', that can hardly be said to be the same as interviewing a witness to a shooting. In addition, the argument for 'continuing' notability shows that my 1,000+ press mentions on all six inhabited continents came over a period of since at least 2001, hardly 'temporary' or 'one-time.'  Compromise: I like the 'extreme longevity tracking' as a compromise. Ironically, User BHG originally suggested a 'supercentenarian trackers' article, which I agreed would be a good idea, but that ultimately fails to satisfy if all you get is a 'list of trackers' without the historiography behind it. Explaining how the field grew from a backward to what it is today, and where it is going, is important. However, I understand how the 'appearance' of COI can make it not a good idea for me to continue, so I would hope that a third-party editor such as yourself would take the Louis Epstein and Robert Young articles and make perhaps a one-paragraph mention, with the caption '1990's (for Louis) and '2000's (for myself).  Please note that I have personal connections with the very highest echelons in the scientific community. This includes more than a dozen persons who each warrant their own Wikipedia article: Leonard Hayflick, Aubrey de Grey, James Vaupel, Jean-Marie Robine, Stephen Coles, Greg Fahy, Preston Estep, Robert Bradbury, S Jay Olshanksy, etc. I have connections with MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Boston University, etc. Maybe, in the short term, I don't need my own article yet. But I am by far younger than any of my other 'friends'. I am personally involved in not just Guinness World Records but the GRG, the SRF, Max Planck Inst