User talk:Longevitydude

excuse me but this is MY page, any comments will be deleted from now on. Longevitydude (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact this is not YOUR page. Read WP:USER. This page belongs, as all pages on Wikipedia do, to the project and the community as a whole. You are free to remove comments, the presumption is that you have read them. However, many consider this rude, and an attempt to hide your own history, and make it harder for others to communicate with you. There is no rule against it -- indeed there is a specific rule permitting it -- but it may well be unwise.

Failure to respond to comments that raise concerns, particularly if the troublesome behavior continues, can also be taken amiss. This kind of attitude is not helpful to work on the project, which is why we are supposed to be here.

I am a fairly experienced editor here, and so is JzG who commented here. I have no negative intent towards you, I am merely offering my best advice which you may take or not as you please. Happy editing. DES ^(talk) 05:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you, i apologize for any mistakes i made in the past and I hope there are no grudges. Longevitydude (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I hold no grudges. If my previous comments seemed harsh or negative I apologize, they were not so intended. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

im glad you hold no grudges, but cp,and others, have been doing stuff that makes me and some of my friends angry, next time i will try not to act out of line in any way. Longevitydude (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I take no positions on the merits of any actions by CP or any editor you are unhappy with as I have not reviewed them. If you feel you need admin intervention I am, within reason, happy to act as an uninvolved party. I will say that often other editors do things on Wikipedia that seem unfortunate, wrong-headed, or even evil. It is best to respond to such things as calmly as possible, first seeking to discuss with the other parties, and if that proves of no avail, asking for uninvolved parties, preferably experienced editors, to help, and/or following the steps of dispute resolution if the matter is important enough. If the matter is trivial, it is often best to simply walk away, possibly after having made your views known. In many cases the other parties are attempting to act in a proper manner as they see things, although this is not always true. Lashing out only makes your case look weaker to others when they come to review matters, and gives ammunition to people opposed to you, should they want it. Making your points calmly but firmly, citing evidence and policy, is often effective. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AfD Discussions

I think it may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That reading has some very good tips on how to take part in an AfD discussion. We may have differing views upon the deletion of Elizabeth Kucinich, but I value other views, especially in the topic of AfD. I just thought you could make use of that link. I have always found it helpful when other editors provided me with hints at improving editing practices. Xe7al (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• cool thanks. Longevitydude (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Sisnett

The article James Sisnett has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. elektrikSHOOS 23:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/grg-sisnett-worlds-third-oldest-man/

here it is Longevitydude (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Bean, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm going to hope that this[1] was an accident - be more careful in the future. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

im sorry, that was an accident. Longevitydude (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Longevity Myths

Greetings,

Regarding this issue, I offered a compromise but John J Bulten didn't want to accept it.

For one thing, there needs to be a differentation. The word "myths" is plural, because the article on longevity mythS included several different kinds. Some do meet the traditional definition 1 of myth (such as patriarchal myth) while others are "individual myths." For example, the idea that Thomas Parr was "152" is a myth of individual longevity. It well fits the definition 2 of myth:

myth (mth) n. 1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth. 2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia. 3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology. 4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

Going back to the story of Noah and the Flood, or Methuselah, or Adam:

Are these stories "traditional"? yes. Are they ancient? Yes. Do they deal with supernatural (things that don't normally occur in nature under the physical laws of the Universe), ancestors, and/or heroes? Yes.

Do they attempt to explain aspects of the world? Yes. Remember the story of the rainbow.

Thus, they meet the traditional definition of "myth," which need not be offensive.

Secondly, do they deal with extreme longevity? Adam=930, Methuselah=969, Noah=950. Yes.

Therefore, they are longevity myths.

Note the ages are of significance. As I mentioned, the idea that man's life was shortened due to sin is obvious, and we see that although Noah died at 950, no one born after the Flood lived past 464 years old.

Thus, the human lifespan was shortened from 1,000 to 500 years, in the Biblical explanation.

Science doesn't accept the possibility of any of this happening.

The article "longevity myths" was an attempt to explain where cultural ideas of extreme longevity originate.

Note that Adam, Methuselah, and Noah are in a genealogy that connects "man to God." As such, like many cultures, the earlier ages reported are far higher, as those persons were "closer to God."

We also see that in lists of Babylonian kings, or Japanese king-lists, or Chinese emperor-lists, that ages get higher further back in the genealogy. Often this is an attempt to claim "ancientness." Historians believe that the first Japanese emperor actually dates to 400 AD; the list was stretched to 660 BC. Adding a thousand and 60 years (a kanoto-tori cycle) required making some reigns last more than a century.

Finally, many historians believe that "Noah" or "Methuselah" represented groups of people and not just one person. The BIblical timeline roughly accords with historical data back to Abraham, but before that there is no evidence.Ryoung122 16:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Katie McMenamin

Click on the blue link in the box on top of Katie McMenamin's article saying, "this article's entry", then state your opinion (deletion presumably) as to why you want it deleted. It will help support getting rid of the article. Thanks Aaron. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look here

I didn't say I didn't want your opinion. The other time, you posted your message on Robert Young's TALK PAGE, on a question that clearly was meant for him. To say things like "I know you don't want my opinion" is simply asking for trouble. Brendan (talk, contribs) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Im not asking for trouble, I was merely giving my opinion, trying to help, if your gonna send messages you must send them expecting a reaction. Longevitydude (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted my proposal on Robert's talk page. What does that tell you? It tells you that the message was meant for him, not for you. Your opinion was perfectly welcome here, because it was a public talk page. I was miffed when you said "I know you don't want my opinion...", because it was perfectly welcome on a public talk page. I'm 15, and you're 17. With 1,927 posts on the 110 Club, I thought you'd have known better. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, its just that sometimes when im in a bad mood I don't take constructive criticism very well. Longevitydude (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You were at the time? Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but when my mistakes are pointed out im willing to apologise, thanks for your help on the Jan afd. Longevitydude (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I think it's outrageous that Jan should get an AfD. I mean, for "ordinary" supercentenarians like J. Reeta Jones, I can understand if they get AfDed, but Jan? Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A Word of Counsel

Dude:

You're weakening your case and undermining your allies right now. I hear your passion and commend it. But it's blinding you to the fact that you are making statements, one after the other, that suggest you really don't understand some core policy.

I don't believe that's true, but I fear your zeal is overmatching your judgment. Thoroughly understandable, given your chronological age. You're used to being one of the smartest guys in the room, even in a room full of adults. You're not convincing people, you're used to convincing people, and you're frustrated.

Please trust me when I say that your position is abudently clear. You need not have the last word. And you risk breaking the First Rule of Holes.

Best regards,

DiDC David in DC (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know we don't agree, but I thank you for taking the time to give me some useful advice. Longevitydude (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullets

Also, can you PLEASE use bullets (*) when posting your comments? This is what the AfD guide says, and you fail to do it every time. — Timneu22 · talk 17:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I only vote for the deletion of articles when enough members of the grg vote that way, they know best which articles are notable, they don't validate people until they are supercentenarians, 110+, and thats why 110 is considered the age of notability. Longevitydude (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok then

Well I can see you don't care to have a conversation. — Timneu22 · talk 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• You get mad at me for accusing people of stuff, but then you turn around and accuse me of basically the same stuff, doesn't the grg have the right to be informed of their articles, don't their opinions count. Longevitydude (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• You know it probably doesn't help when your line in debate runs to 'This AfD is so long only because of you and your merry band of meat puppets, canvas puppets, and probable sock puppets.' Not good to accuse half the people on a page, most of them only contributing en passant, of being socks or whatever, and it's not going to help your side next time you want to delete something, and people remember that you slandered them as socks. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW thanks sumbuddi, that advice was very helpful. Longevitydude (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that I hadn't commented that much. More than 41 hours. This is completely unlike your whining about every "delete" argument put on the page. Nonsense. As for "helping my side" about deleting something: you're supposed to vote based on the merits of the article, not by who nominated it. If I catch either of you nominating things based on spite of another user, I'll have you reported immediately. — Timneu22 · talk 20:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)