The Fossil Hominids: References. TalkOrigins does no original research, of course. They compile from the publications of the original researchers.
2. Even this author says that the dating can be anywhere from 200,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago. The earliest date for homo sapiens is 100,000 years ago.
You asked for "after 200,000 years ago." Rhodesia Man's dating range centers nicely in the interval you requested. All of the older, non-C14-dated skulls have similarly large ranges. Thus, you apparently don't ever have to accept any older fossil skull, if any uncertainty in age will do as grounds for rejection.
3. This is by the admission of the author a "re-classified" fossil, it was homo rhodensis, not homo erectus before the evolutionists needed an erectus to show continuity to homo sapiens after Neanderthal was blown out of the water.
Yeah, they changed the name. Boy, that proves a lot! Actually, it's Homo sapiens (archaic), most would say. Recall that any erectus after 400,000 years is controversial.
With Viagra, all things are possible, but that would be pushing it a bit.
No they did not just change the name, they changed the species from its own to homo erectus. So, regardless of your sophistry, it is not proof of his being an ancestor to homo sapiens. In fact you should read the story of this skull. It was found in a mine. It was seriously mistreated by the miners. There were other skeletons found with it which were totally destroyed. The site was never available for examination and many more problems which make this skull totally unusable as proof of anything.