This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 18 February 2011 (→I object to your longevity-related announcement: Follow-up on AE complaint.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:27, 18 February 2011 by Arcticocean (talk | contribs) (→I object to your longevity-related announcement: Follow-up on AE complaint.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | User:Ryoung122 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages back soon, but not very |
 Archives |
|
2/18/2005 to 8/30/2006 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
limbo case Transito Ayala
In the article "list of disputed supercentenarian claimants" Transito Ayala from Colombia is one of the limbo cases. I think it is very important to find out if she is alive. Her alleged birthdate is 13 August 1896. After the death of Eunice Sanborn the oldest person of the world is Besse Cooper, born on 26 August 1896. Transito Ayala would be the oldest living person of the world if her birthday is correct. It is possible to find out if Transito Ayala is still alive or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.134.97 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Longevity COI
A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- More attacks from JJBulten, who has politicized Misplaced Pages.Ryoung122 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm obliged to put this here, sorry to clog up your talk page. In fact this whole issue is a load of rubbish and is getting quite tiresome, those people really need to "get a life". DerbyCountyinNZ 23:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Accusation against me at AN/I of wikistalking
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.David in DC (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Sudhakar Chaturvedi
Please, let's not get into an edit war over a single punctuation mark. You have been around long enough to know very well the policies at WP:BLP and WP:V. If you don't have a reliable source that questions his age then, as a living person, his age should not be questioned on Misplaced Pages. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard. If you have a source that calls his age into question, feel free to provide it and insert your doubts. Canadian Paul 05:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Longevity etc
Hello Robert
Thanks for your long post on my talk page. I'm going to reply to your points one by one below.
- Suggested deletion of mini-bios regarding oldest persons
"It may come as a surprise, but the idea of having mini-bios of supercentenarians all lumped together by nationality was, in fact, the idea of WIKIPEDIAN editors, NOT the people (such as myself) who preferred to have:"
A. list articles for national pages and
B. stand-alone articles for individuals, such as Jeanne Calment."
Afraid that this sort of thing happens all the time. A solution in 2007 can be revisited. Perhaps I should have read the earlier discussion but you can't expect me to read everything related to longevity, because there are a lot of articles.
- "how notable does someone have to be to be notable due to age?"
See my addition to the project main page. We already have notability guidelines for biographies. There are some extra ones, like WP:PROF that are frequently referred to. I suggest that the project uses the main biography guidelines until project members are willing to thrash out supplementary guidelines. I suggested that a clear policy might be: over 110 and there is a presumption of notability. But only JJB responded, and he didn't agree. So the default is "if there is coverage in independent sources, then notable".
"Everyone would agree that Jeanne Calment is notable for her own article. Almost everyone agrees that persons who attain "world's oldest person" status are notable enough for their own article. After that, things become more tricky: is oldest in the UK enough? What if there are a lot of reliable sources?"
Existence of independent sources should be the main criterion in a biography.
"sports and television characters. Rules have been set up that, in general, ANYONE who so much as played a single game, ever, in major league sports gets their own article...and then on top of that, college players may get their own article if media coverage warrants."
WP:OTHERCRAP applies. But actually, that's far from my experience. I gave the example of WP:FOOTY, where the criteria are tight and rigidly adhered to.
"So, I would kindly ask you we discuss this main issue FIRST."
I did, you see. I argued for notability guidelines, and then when there was no response I went away and wrote some myself.
- Reliability of the GRG
Before we say anything else, there's a distinction to be made between the reliability of the GRG work in general, and the status as reliable source in Misplaced Pages of individual web pages.
- as soon as JJBulten thinks he may have an advantage, he presses too far.
JJB's behaviour is an entirely separate point that, if necessary, needs to be taken up in an appropriate forum. I find myself frequently in disagreement with him, but we are managing to discuss civilly and I don't have an issue with his behaviour at the moment.
"Excuse him, since when did JJBulten become the de facto arbiter of what the GRG is or was?"
Obviously he's not, but he's entitled to express opinions about RS. My wording was "work in progress", and User:GRuban came to agree with me.
- The Wall Street Journal has covered the GRG
Clearly there is worthwhile work going on. That doesn't mean that everything appearing on a GRG website is RS for Misplaced Pages.
"What JJBulten is attempting to do is to subvert a system..."
The rest of us aren't attempting to subvert anything. Obviously advanced age is checked out ever more carefully.
"this cannot be used as justification for saying that Noah lived to 950."
Just to be clear. Misplaced Pages is not going to say that Noah lived to 950. End of.
"apologist junk like Custance"
I haven't seen a convincing argument that Custance is reliable for anything. He doesn't seem to be a notable theologian. Theologians are reliable for theology, though, and biologists are reliable for biology. Simple principles like that are our most useful guide.
"His proposed changes or policies for the WikiProject WOP need to be conforming to outside sources."
You don't need a source to suggest a policy.
"As Timmneu noted, a lot of what he proposed was vague. I suggest further scrutiny is needed here."
If at any point you think a fringe theory is being promoted, come to WP:FTN. Even if you withdraw temporarily or permanently from editing these articles, you can always post there and be sure we will take it up.
"You'll find that I'm more than just an expert in the field...I'm involved in most of the major groups that study supercentenarians"
That's all good, but being an expert in a field has its disadvantages when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. I'm also bearing in mind that it's a narrow field, and one would also expect an experienced investigative journalist, or a historian used to working with archives of a particular period to be able to investigate longevity claims reliably.
"I do appreciate if your goal is to IMPROVE the coverage on Misplaced Pages regarding supercentenarians and articles on topics under WIKIPROJECT World's Oldest People"
It always was.
"...but I think some of that improvement needs to come from better understanding of the field and the situation."
It'll work best if there's a division of labour. You go and contribute to sources like GRW, then people who know WP policy will work up good articles based on the sources. We have people here who care really passionately about copyediting, spelling, list formatting, all that sort of stuff. So you don't have to bother with it.
"The ultimate truth is that the scientific facts suggest we humans aren't going to live forever."
Er, yeah. It still needs a reliable source though.
"a Republican fundamentalist operative who is manipulating Misplaced Pages for religious and political reasons"
He isn't manipulating it because everyone will make sure that we don't say Noah lived beyond 122. We don't say there was a Noah. We don't even say there was a Jesus, but we make it clear that the majority view among scholars is that there was such a person, while also presenting the minority view that there wasn't.
So where do we go from here? I'd be quite happy never to look at any of these articles again. I referred to longevity cruft, which is a bit blunt, but that's how it seems to this outsider. And then there's the walled garden aspect, with people reverting me for so much as changing bold text. Longevity myths needs sorting. If you think that making up stories about long-lived people is a human universal, or that there is a continuity of myth-making from 3,000 BCE till now, then that needs a qualified source. I'm still not convinced there's an encyclopedic topic in there, whether it's renamed "longevity narratives", or claims or stories or anything.
Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, JJB 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Robert - I come in peace, please don't shoot. The ArbCom case needs your participation. I believe, quite strongly, that you've acted as a bully, throughout our dealings. No doubt you can cite a thousand instances on which to base a claim that I'm a troll.
- Nonetheless, having this discussion without you would diminish its value. The panel has expressed interest in reviewing other editors' behavior, noting on your behalf that some folks have been "pushing your buttons." I'm likely one. In my response to you in our latest exchange on my talk page, I urged you to seek comparisons between our edits and our tone by neutral authorities. Here's an appropriate venue for at least some of that. David in DC (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you are interested in providing evidence to this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings,
I already made it more than clear that I was busy and unavailable from November 15 to December 15, 2010.
I therefore request an extension or postponement to next month (December 16 or afterward).
I will point out that this involves issues much larger than simply personal likes and dislikes and individual editors getting along...it is akin to issues such as teaching creationism vs. evolution in schools...only in this case, what we have is scientific longevity versus religious fundamentalist views on longevity.
Let me be succinct: JJBulten pushes the "creationist" POV, as a political and religious lobbyist who does this as part of an agenda that is not conducive to Misplaced Pages's core policies.Ryoung122 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bobby Bowden, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
more afds
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WOP#Common_deletion_outcomes
I know you might agree with some of these, and thats ok, but I know youll have something to say about it, even if we disagree I still value your opinions. Longevitydude (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of cabalism
Honest-to-goodness. Please review this chart and apply Occam's Razor in good faith. The obvious conclusion leaves my solely on-wiki editing untainted by secrecy, collusion or conspiracy. The accusation is untrue. And hurtful. David in DC (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, David in DC, your behaviour on several AfDs and elsewhere have carried heavy implications of cabalism. Please behave. → Brendan 11:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If it helps
I wanted to give you one more chance before deadline to consider something. Much of your evidence actually presented to ArbCom consists of off-Wiki comments by an identity named "JJB". Off-Wiki comments are prima facie completely out of ArbCom's jurisdiction; I discovered this evidence yesterday and disclaimed all connection with this "JJB" identity. You state you have a desire to get much more information on the official Misplaced Pages record that would help us in what is ostensibly our mutual goal, encyclopedic treatment of longevity. It is my belief that the ArbCom case will shortly result in collaborative consensus methods for determining how this treatment should be organized, a collaboration relatively free from antipolicy behavior. You have a few hours still to refactor your evidence section, which currently appears to have 0 diffs and over 1000 words, and which will be what ArbCom judges your case contribution by. JJB 18:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm too busy right now to bother with this nonsense. Misplaced Pages is loaded with self-important editors who put emotional opinion ahead of actual policy.
Sometimes it's better for me to work with professional news organizations, such as this below:
Now, as regards to your point of disavowal...someone represented themselves as you on the 110 Club. If it was not you, I had no knowledge of that at the time. We now think it was xxxxx LongevityDude imitating you.
So, I retract those statements.
I'm more concerned with fallacious arguments such as those on the List of African Supercentenarians. DavidinDC throws in highly inappropriate assertions that are off-topic, and what do we see? Editors like BladeofNorthernLights supporting him, rather than calling out his misbehavior.
Misplaced Pages is anti-expert. They give the advantage to those who know nothing on a topic. There is a reason a lot of people have left Misplaced Pages. And while Misplaced Pages worries about the reliability of outside sources, outside sources (i.e., academia) never consider Misplaced Pages a reliable source. Anything said now may be different 15 seconds from now.
There is a systemic problem here, regardless of one's personal opinion.
I'm going to say this: on some issues, I might actually agree with you...such as keeping a myths of longevity template.
Yet I find it incredulous that non-experts deign to decide that the intersection of "supercentenarians" and "Africa" is not notable. That is a problem with Misplaced Pages's failure to adequately address the "anyone can edit" situation.
It may be five years, it may be ten years. In the long run, these decisions will not stand.
Have a nice day.Ryoung122 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the particular issue, I grant that it's entirely possible that, within 10 years, there might be multiple reliable uninvolved sources making lists of African supercentenarians per se, but nobody is doing so now except people closely related to you. On the general issue, your statement "will not stand" can easily imply an intent to ensure this outcome at any cost, given that your dismissing the current WP process as "nonsense" indicates a disrespect for following WP processes. Accordingly, I take your statement as evidence that it will be appropriate for ArbCom to consider remedies that deal not only with current disruption but also with disruption that might reasonably follow their judgments. JJB 17:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Timeout
I will be making two trips in the next two weeks, one to Florida and one to Spain. I don't have time to deal with the "Longevity Arbcom" mess right now.
All I can say is that there are serious problems with the current "let's pare this down!" mentality which violates Wiki policies relating to outside sources. We also have false accusations relating to "notability" and using one's personal opinion, rather than outside sources, to dis-establish notability. One can see that I continue to be cited in notable sources:
Yet, we have an astounding, bizarre decision that "List of African supercentenarians" isn't notable. Most often, the argument is an incorrect assertion that extreme age cannot confer notability, when it fact it can.
Ultimately, these decisions are a problem because they violate Misplaced Pages's policies.
To be continued.Ryoung122 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Elsa Moberg
The article Elsa Moberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Timestamp: 20110121233043
Collaboration on Sourcing and Notability
Please provide more policy-based reasoning than an edit summary will allow on the project's talk page for these edits. I'll post my view there now. David in DC (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Fixing what I started
Robert,
To make up for what I did last year I brought back your wikipedia article. I think this is the right time because It's been almost 4 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29 Plyjacks (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Vile, evil lie
DavidinDC has made anti-gay comments and is clearly biased against science in favor of his own ego. The first clause is a lie. A damned lie. I hope we meet some day to discuss it. Your behavior here, is reprehensible. David in DC (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you said that "DavidinDC" is not your name. In any case, it's an "identity," not you. I based what I said on what you said, which I did not think was funny.Ryoung122 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am David in DC, not DavidinDC. On at least one wiki, there IS a DavidinDC. I'm not he.
- I thought you said you were on wikibreak. It's a lie, but not an evil one.
- Your slur against me, your faux retraction, and your reiteration of the lie are all examples of evil behavior. If you change your behavior, the way you're treated will change. Remember, focus on the behavior, not the editor or, in your idiosyncratic parlance, the behavior of the editor's identity. I do not call you a liar. I call your slur a lie. A damnable one.David in DC (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- David in DC is not a person, it is an avatar. No one knows who you are. Nonetheless, I found your original comments made about the Sebastian Bonnett AFD to be insulting to LGBT persons. I can take offense at what you said. I was approaching the editing from an objective POV and you say go run off and look at pictures. That was insulting.Ryoung122 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Refactor Request
Could you please look over this request by JJB and either refactor your statement as JJB requests or back up your statements with more solid evidence? Please try to do this within the next 24 hours at most. NW (Talk) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be searching for this, but I already found something on DavidinDC:
whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians
OK, here's more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Guzm%C3%A1n-Garc%C3%ADa
whether they are biased against non-western centenarians
Checking out the article on African supercentenarians and the AFD, JJB notes he would go after the European article later.
in fact, those two were discussing strategies for deletion of supercentenarian-related articles. They went after Africa and South America first, then planned to go after Europe (which did not occur): see List of African supercentenarians.
The irony is that their clipping of the Africa and South American articles makes Misplaced Pages less-fair when it comes to coverage of supercentenarians, favoring those who live in Europe over those who live on other continents.Ryoung122 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity
An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
- Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Misplaced Pages process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
- John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year;
- WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Misplaced Pages editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and community norms;
- Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Census 2010 data
Census 2010 data is currently being released, and in many cases new census numbers are available, even at the city or town level. Most data will be released by April 1, 2011.Ryoung122 11:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I object to your longevity-related announcement
I've filed an enforcement request here. David in DC (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- FYI: The enforcement request has been closed as not actionable. AGK 20:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)