Magere Hein

I think it's called denial That's a river in Africa, innit? regards, Hein

Well done that man! I'll check the DL office safe if we can spare a kudo. regards, Hein

And Day, Domino, Gabor, de Haviland, Kissinger, Lamotta, Lynn, Mubarak, O'Toole, Philip, Reagan, Schmidt and Wallach, too! 14 hits in one day, this must be heaven! regards, Hein

I copied it large, perhaps that helps. Do they keep that updated on a regular basis? Because if you scroll down to the comments, the earliest comment is dated June 26th 2012 I haven't a clue. Can't say I care either. regards, Hein

Not a good reader, are you? That site says: Mikhail Kalashnikov anticipated obituary ("anticipated" means that he is not dead). and: What follows is not a real news article; nothing (that we know) happened to him. I copied it large, perhaps that helps. regards, Hein

A Trigger's broom band these days though. So are a lot of bands when they've clocked up 30+ years. The Dubliners finally split up recentky and they had none of the original members left! None of the originals alive even. Though I suppose you must have a hit if your band keeps going six months after the last of the founding members dies... In classical orchestras this is perfectly normal, so why not in pop bands? Classical orchestras are just cover bands, mostly. Certainly, but that doesn't invalidate my point. One philosophical view on Theseus' paradox suggests that a Trigger's broom band is also mostly a cover band. regards, Hein

A Trigger's broom band these days though. So are a lot of bands when they've clocked up 30+ years. The Dubliners finally split up recentky and they had none of the original members left! None of the originals alive even. Though I suppose you must have a hit if your band keeps going six months after the last of the founding members dies... In classical orchestras this is perfectly normal, so why not in pop bands? regards, Hein

Queen Fabiola finds herself in hot water after setting up a financial construction to dodge inheritance tax. Apparently she's preparing for the end. regards, Hein

Not quite the case it turns out.... His Journey into space was translated to Dutch and broadcast as a serialised radio play Sprong in het heelal, first aired in the1950s. It was run again in the 1970s and I listened to most episodes. I loved them. Incidentally, the director of Sprong in het heelal, Léon Povel, died 8 Januari, aged 101. regards, Hein

Dr Feelgood, the guys who sang "When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman". That was Dr. Hook No, Dr. Hook did "The Next Episode" and "California Love". I thought Dr Hook was from The Muppet Show. That was Dr Bunsen Honeydew. regards, Hein

Roger? regards, Hein

It won't be long till bits start falling off. It looks like my theme team will get a joker hit. regards, Hein

I've taken the liberty to move this discussion from the "World's Oldest" topic after complaints from the neighbours. Is that always the case, though? I have seen many articles that cite facts from websites, not scholarly articles. Generally, the better articles cite from more reputable websites but even that doesn't seem well-enforced. If scholarly literature is availabe online, which is often the case, it can be used. Depending on context, reference to news websites and such can be acceptable. Sourcing is a problem in general. Many WP articles can be found that are riddled with those pesky Citation needed tags. Whether those needs are ever filled depends on the effort editors are willing to put into providing them. You presume correctly. I don't know if having two extremes go at each other will result in a balanced and impartial middle ground being reached... Anyway, I dare say Israel has more resources to throw at this than Hamas, Iranians or neo-Nazi fringe types so they will probably "win" any edit war. Oh, a conflict by two extremes will not result in a balanced and impartial middle ground by itself. The usual routine is that an edit war (in which two or more editors revert each other's edits as soon as they're spotted) erupts a non-partisan editor steps in the page is locked resolution by discussion is attempted resolution by discussion fails the conflict is escalated to the community the conflict is resolved by some authority By the time the last bit is reached, several editors, inclusing non-partisans, have left the project in a huff. regards, Hein

Selamat datang di DeathList. Sorry, my Bahasa Indonesia isn't good enough to understand that. Could you say it in English? regards, Hein

It's good practice not to take WP as gospel. Never use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly or professional work. That said: WP is a remarkable source of information, generally of good quality and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. I regularly put time and effort in improving and extending it. I've spotted dozens of hoaxes in the Dutch version, often minutes after they were posted. I take a much more cynical view of it. I cite it (normally for reasons of laziness) on a site like this but don't use it for my professional work. In fact, I use Google filters to block it most of the time these days. There is a well-known Australian saying that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" and that is how I feel about Wikipedia. Of course it's all unwieldy; that comes with the territory. And yes, it takes a lot of work by many editors to keep the rubbish out, and it doesn't always succeed. I understand what you're saying. Open source software development isn't without its own flaws, but it works much better for several reasons, an important one is that most contributors know what they're doing. In a project that has the meek goal of collecting all human knowledge, something we all have a part of and feel deeply about, things aren't so easy. I won't call it deeply flawed, but I know well that Wikipedia has serious built-in problems. Perhaps the most worrying part of that is that in the twelve years it exists it's grown in (I think) the most successful not-for-profit web enterprise, with a truly global impact. Financing it without compromising its independence and ideals, and keeping its content reliable will grow more and more difficult. I'm not confident that the future of WP is bright. The mechanisms are there: edits that present points of view as fact are to be rejected. Also there's a policy that facts, as well as evaluations of points of view, must be sourced to scholarly literature. These mechanisms work as good as the people who apply them. In the Israely case you've linked to, there are enough people who have an axe to grind with Israel who will fiercely contest any slanted edit these people try to slip in. That is where Wikipedia shows its worst side, BTW. As soon as a confict over edits arises, things soon get nasty. Your committee remark hits the spot smack on there. The mechanisms for conflict resolution work reasonably well but painfully slow and often editors become deeply emotional. This often leads to good editors leaving the project, which of course means that the bad ones get more room. regards, Hein

Does anyone still bother with Wikipedia after this? So a hoax was put in Wikipedia. That wasn't the first time, it won't be the last time. See WP's own list of hoaxes that were spotted. I'm certain many more lurk in there. It's good practice not to take WP as gospel. Never use Wikipedia as a source for scholarly or professional work. That said: WP is a remarkable source of information, generally of good quality and, perhaps most importantly, cheap. I regularly put time and effort in improving and extending it. I've spotted dozens of hoaxes in the Dutch version, often minutes after they were posted. regards, Hein

Hi and welcome to DL. I like your chess related user name and avatar. regards, Hein

Indeed he has: the news site of Dutch broadcaster NOS has the story, in Dutch. Interestingly, some anonymous editor already mentioned his death last Monday just after midnight, in a list of centenarians in the Dutch Wikipedia. I reverted his edit, because there was no conformation of Helders' death in the news then. Now the waiting game starts. Will UK media pick up the story and give me my first ever Theme Team points? regards, Hein

Flemish musician Bart Van den Bossche died, aged 48. regards, Hein

That, or perhaps even a Treadwell. regards, Hein

RFC 616 - The DeathList Rant Index DeathList Technical Working Group Request for Comments: 616 Version: 1.03 Date: 24 October 2005 A Standard for the rating of rants, posted on DeathList Forum Status of this Memo This memo describes a method for the rating of rants on DeathList Forum and its subfora. Readers' comments are invited, either by posting them, or by PM'ing the author. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Overview Rants, defined here as posts written with the purpose of venting anger, are regularly posted on DeathList Forum and its subfora. The quality of those rants varies greatly. The DeathList Rant Index (DLRI) is proposed as a tool for rating a rant. General principles To be a rant, a post must communicate anger about posts published on DeathList Forum or Deathlist as a whole. A post containing just random characters cannot be a rant. On the other hand, a well-reasoned criticism, written in immaculate English, can be, even if it is not recognised immediately. Normally, a rant will be written in anger, a mood in which the writer easily makes mistakes. These mistakes come in the following categories: Content Language and formatting Stupidity Scoring Scoring starts at 0. For each of the listed elements a post is awarded one point if it is present in the post. All points are added and the total divided by the number of elements listed and multiplied by 100 and finally rounded to the nearest whole number. When an element is present more than once, this will not result in more points. All possible DLRI values lie between 0 and 100. To count as a rant an index value of at least 10 is needed. For scoring purposes the name of the ranter, the topic and the topic description are considered part of the post. Signatures are not considered part of the post. Scoring elements Here follows a list of DLRI scoring elements. Content The post states that the members of DeathList.net are sick. This includes any presumed diagnosis of physical or mental disease. The post states that a relative or friend of the writer died recently. The post states that a living relative or friend of the writer suffers from cancer or some other terminal disease. If the post is written in a topic about a person, living or dead, the post states or infers that the subject is above criticism. The post states or infers that the poster is morally or intellectually superior to the members of DeathList.net. The post contains one or more obscenities. The post states or infers a wish of a painful or imminent death on the members of DeathList.net. The post states or infers a wish that the members of DeathList.net go to hell. [*]Language and formatting Bad grammar, spelling, interpuction or formatting do not automatically form a DLRI scoring element. Posts in languages other than English cannot be scored for these elements. The post contains five or more misspelt words. Obvious typos do not count as spelling mistakes, nor do accepted spelling variants. The post contains two or more grammatical errors. The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're". The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your / you're". The post contains one or more instances of "alot" instead of "a lot". The post contains one or more instances of the pronoun "I" in lower case. The post contains five or more instances of bad interpunction and capitalisation. The post contains three or more instances of a multisyllabic word written in ALL CAPS. The post is written in one case only (lower case or capital). The post contains one or more instances of consecutive question marks (??) or exclamation marks (!!). The post contains l33t5PE@K or AOLese. The post speaks about the poster in the third person [*]Stupidity While all rants are stupid, not all stupid posts are rants. The post contains one or more direct contradictions. The post contains one or more statements that are widely agreed on to be false. The post tries to rebut a statement that was not made in a previous post in the topic. The post contains one or more email addresses. The post contains one or more threats of physical violence. Warnings are considered threats. As an example, let's take a recent post: [1] The post states that the members of DeathList.net are sick. [1] The post states that a relative or friend of the writer died recently. [0] The post states that a living relative or friend of the writer suffers from cancer or some other terminal disease. [1] If the post is written in a topic about a person, living or dead, the post states or infers that the subject is above criticism. [0] The post states or infers that the poster is morally or intellectually superior to the members of DeathList.net. [1] The post contains one or more obscenities. [0] The post states or infers a wish of a painful or imminent death on the members of DeathList.net. [1] The post states or infers a wish that the members of DeathList.net to go to hell. [1] The post contains five or more misspelt words. Obvious typos do not count as spelling mistakes, nor do accepted spelling variants. [0] The post contains two or more grammatical errors. [0] The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "there / their / they're / there're". [0] The post contains one or more instances of misuse of "your/ you're". [0] The post contains one or more instances of "alot" instead of "a lot". [1] The post contains one or more instances of the pronoun "I" in lower case. [1] The post contains five or more instances of bad interpunction and capitalisation. [0] The post contains three or more instances of a multisyllabic word written in ALL CAPS. [0] The post is written in one case only (lower case or capital). [1] The post contains one or more instances of consecutive question marks (??) or exclamation marks (!!). [0] The post contains l33t5PE@K or AOLese. [0] The post speaks about the poster in the third person [1] The post contains one or more direct contradictions. [1] The post contains one or more statements that are widely agreed on to be false. [0] The post tries to rebut a statement that was not made in a previous post in the topic. [0] The post contains one or more email addresses. [0] The post contains one or more threats of physical violence. Warnings are considered threats. The DLRI of this post is (11/25)*100 = 44. regards, Hein

Nice birthday present. regards, Hein

How inconsiderate. Can't they announce NYE deaths a few hours before the celebrity in question buys the farm? regards, Hein

Not quite the case it turns out.... Well I'll be dipped in dogshit, I know that name. His Journey into space was translated to Dutch and broadcast as a serialised radio play Sprong in het heelal, first aired in the1950s. It was run again in the 1970s and I listened to most episodes. I loved them. regards, Hein

Welcome to DeathList, NagsHeadReading, where nagging is a way if life. regards, Hein