User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Claude Choules

Hi Ryoung122, I have made a contribution to the debate regarding Mr Choules at the surviving veterans of the First World War talk page which may be of interest to you, Regards, Moldovanmickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of the verified oldest people#New Spanish anonymous cases .28M.A.C.C..2C and M.C.L.L..29

Hi Robert,

You may want to contribute to the above discussion. Similar additions have been made to List of the verified oldest men. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

L Tables on GRG

Hi, for the pending cases section of the L tables that haven't been updated since 2007, I was wondering if those are still pending and ones that haven't been added to the Wikipedia pages can be added on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find more-recent data on the Table E lists (for example, 2007 deaths, 2008 deaths, 2009 deaths, etc.) Ryoung122 (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Instinct (magazine)

You asked me on my talk page to restore Instinct (magazine). I would happily have done so, but found that Mkativerata had already done so, as you evidently know. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note, however, that customer reviews are notoriously not reliable sources for anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I just discovered Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths, delayed due to a miscommunication. You may proceed with it in any way you like; our last related discussion is at User:John J. Bulten/DR2. As always, please feel free to let me know of any specific improvements I can make to the articles in accord with policy. JJB 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Way out: I dare you

[Atama and I] are ready when you are. Please respond at User talk:Atama. JJB 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Longevity myths. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFOWR 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I still have some doubts if your last commentary was direct to me or not. If it is the case and you think what I said was inconvenient you must agree one thing with me - Wikipedia is not the proper place for discussing scientific nomenclature. If you and your coleagues use the expression "longevity miths" no wikipedia discussion can change that. You only need to give proof that the expression is used.Japf (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Swedish following Astrid Zachrison's death: Mikaelsson or H. Karlsson?


I notice that Rut Mikaelsson (16 October 1899 - 24 August 2009) was listed here as the oldest living Swedish following Astrid Zachrison's death on 15 May 2008. However, I notice she is younger than Hulda Karlsson (2 February 1898 - 22 April 2008) who is a verified supercentenarian according to the table of validated Swedish supercentenarians above it.

Is it an error? Thank you for your time. BrendanologyContriB 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hulda Karlsson died in April, which is before May, 2008.Ryoung122 15:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see it now. Thank you for your patience. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, I would appreciate it if you could leave messages on my talk page, rather than my user page. Thanks. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 01:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shigechiyo Izumi

Guinness World Records even doubts Izumi's claim (now), either on p.81 or p.82. Both sources (GRG and GWR) doubt the claim, this is enough to remove him, yes?

How many documents must there be necessary to debunk a claim (e.g. Carrie C. White)? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick and Robert, I also addressed this issue at Talk:Longevity claims#Proposed principles #2. The issue to me is whether the POV of believing the claim is sufficiently widespread to be one of the POVs mentioned. With your new information, the question is the weight of the prior GWR reportage in many people's minds vs. the validity and verifiability of the doubt-inducing documents. IMHO one on-point and public document would probably do the trick, especially if the oldest claim-supporting document is also available for contrast, and this is perhaps even true for Izumi. If the doc is not public then GRG can quote its key claims on talk. If the document after posting to WP is agreed to be right on, I think we can safely say WP can demote the case. PMFJI. (And this from an Izumi fan who kept buying the book every year to see if he was still alive!) JJB 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Another idea

Thank you for entering into mediation, and here's hoping Atama comes back soon. Your latest comments to TFOWR reminded me of something: I can really empathize with someone's wonderment at how Wikipedia permits that other editor (in this case, me) to get away with everything while this poor editor (meaning you) is slapped down and unheeded. This has happened to me in spades once, and occasionally in other suits too. The fact is, and we both know it, Wikipedia is largely no-man's-land and Wild West, and we must each work together to get what we want, especially when there is a conflict between our desires. But if we are both dedicated to improving Wikipedia in general, there is no ultimate conflict. I really appreciate that you have held off on further sudden moves, and I'm hopeful that a mediative process works. Can we start by agreeing on our baseline so as to prevent anyone from seeing us as continuing belligerents? As of this second, we have "myths" in "your" version and "claims" in "mine", and that is a good way to start; I have also agreed theoretically that we could have both articles in "your" version temporarily while we discuss; but you haven't told me where you will agree to start the baseline. I've made several "edit requests" at mediation, and have gone ahead with some, due to asking for and not receiving any objection within 24 hours, and because the requests are in the category you seem to hold as noncontroversial. But I need to know you are engaged in or committed to reaching consensus rather than other motivations I'd not care to surmise. Can you commit to work with me one step at a time toward obtaining agreements on basic principles going forward? The first one is what article baseline we agree on. (The next is how to handle ongoing noncontroversial edit requests.) Can you give me some input on that while you're here? Thank you. JJB 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The best I can suggest is to combine the categories into longevity myths and legends or longevity myths and traditions. It would then be up to the individual reader to choose, in their mind, which cases belong in which...because the way I see it, myths date to time immemorial. Traditional myths are, by definition, stories that were invented to explain how things came to be the way they are, before the advent of the scientific method. Colloquial myths are something else, but in some ways are related. As I mentioned, however, there are actually four main definitions of myth, not two; thus Methuslelah is a traditional myth; Thomas Parr is what some might call a "legend"; William Coates is a colloquial myth (definitionally speaking). However, sometimes these boundaries are not clear-cut. When a pastor at Mr. Coates's funeral service insisted he "really was" 114, that wasn't appealing to the colloquial idea of mythology, but to the religious, tribal-elder/patriarchal sense that this man's passing had on the religious group he was in a kinship network in. Ultimately, the real point is that humans have a desire to believe in immortality, even when that desire conflicts with observational reality. Thus, we see people as "114" rather than the truth (he was 92) because we want to believe that we, ourselves, aren't going to die.

As for changes, I would prefer they be made slowly and after consensus was established. Whether something is an "improvement" or not should be determined, in part, by the reaction to it made by others (consensus) and thus to make a lot of changes at once makes a mess of the process. Given we are talking about something covering thousands of years, this is by no means a "current event" that needs to be rushed.Ryoung122 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this at first. Those thoughts on the way you see it would be nice to have sourced. By "baseline" I meant what start consensus we can work from, assuming a free flow of discussion toward resolution of differences via understanding and compromise. For instance, would you agree to start from the current versions of "myths" and "claims" and mediate from there? Now, I don't want to discount your suggestion for article title, because it's the first time I've noticed you to actually propose a compromise that takes account of WP:RNPOV, but I still don't think that title will pass muster with WP:AND, and it wasn't what needs to be resolved first even though it was a good suggestion. Since discussion is quiet now, either we need to restart dialog or I will need to finish the corrections of policy violations by going back to WP:BRD editing. Thank you. JJB 19:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Estimated living supercents

On the header on List of living supercentenarians, it says "Worldwide there are estimated to be 300–450 living supercentenarians."

I'm having trouble on getting the correct estimate. How many estimated are out there born before January 1, 1900?

Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that there could be some born in 1900. It would be easier to wait until January 1, 2011.

Let's say that we have an estimated 300 living supercentenarians worldwide, with a 50% annual mortality rate. Voila! You would have about 150 from 1899 and before alive as of January 1, 2011. If you go with a high-end estimate (such as 400), then that half-life number would be 200.Ryoung122 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge proposals

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge supercentenarian deaths from 2000 - 2009?

I've been having a think about this. Since the lists of supercentenarian deaths on Wikipedia before 2000 are classified by decade, such as "List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 1990s", and that page includes all validated supercentenarians who died between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1999, how about we do the same for the 2000s, since year 2009 has already long ended? Supercentenarians who died between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009 can be kept in one list, "List of verified supercentenarians who died in the 2000s"? It's more consistent and clutter-free. What do you think of this?

Should I contact DerbyCountyinNZ or someone similar about this? Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 09:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot more supercentenarians died in the 2000s than in the 1990s, dont you think an articles about the 2000s would a a little too long, but since wikipedia is not a piece of paper I guess that arguement holds no water. Longevitydude (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody asked for your opinion here, but I'll still say this. Yes, more supercentenarians died in the 2000s than the 1990s, but the 1990s page contains 369 supercentenarians with room for more. I think it can take one more page for the 2000s death. Once we finish 2019, about 1000 supercentenarians will have died. A 2010s page will no longer be feasible by then. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 03:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion, canvassing and battleground mentality

Someone has alleged that you are engaging in off-wiki canvassing regarding the current discussions at Longevity myths. Is that correct? It appears that you and JJB have a history on this and related topics. Well the current suggestions are not coming from JJB, in fact he appears not to even agree with them. Can you please take a step back and realize that this is not some battle in your personal war? When you arrived to the discussion you were hostile immediately to IMJ and now apparently you are enlisting people for some "Wiki war". This is a bad idea. I think there are some rather legitimate gripes with the current entry and they should be discussed towards resolution in a rational manner that emphasizes the appropriate fields of expertise and the available literature. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm all about doing the right thing. The fact that JJBulten and I agree that the "merge" proposal is "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (i.e., not a solution) indicates how far off it was.

But just as the USA and the USSR were "Allies" against Hitler, once the war was over they went back to not being Allies.

There are several issues, but the process works slowly while editing works fast. Unlike in law, where we "freeze" things as they are, the articles continue to evolve even during the discussion process.

If you check back, you'll see the FIRST negative ('personal attack-style') comments on the merge proposal came from IMJ. The typical slap-suit-style wikilawyering where you threaten people with policies instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

And the issue at hand is that there are false charges being made by IMJ and others.

1. "Longevity myths" is original research or synthesis.

Truth: the article existed even before I came on Wikipedia.

The outside sources use the term. It's NOT Wikipedia's place to decide which term is best to use. If the outside sources use it, then it's the appropriate term to use. As for synthesis, my thesis won a national student award. The experts liked it. It's not Wikipedia's place to serve as a court of appeals to overturn expert opinion. In fact, such editing violates Wikipedia's core policies on reliable sources.

2. "Longevity myths" is a "fringe" subject. Not so. The very large of information on the page and lots of editing are indications that the article is of interest to more than just a few. Not only that, but words like "fringe" carry a cachet like "cult". It's a negative label, and an example of the aggressive negativity that characterized the discussion. That's why I responded the way I did.

Too often, we blame others for our own behavior. IMJ and PerSoGo didn't do enough research on this. They just offered an uninformed opinion.

3. We can't find a compromise.

In fact, JJBulten and myself have suggested calling this "longevity myths and traditions" to create a more pluralistic viewpoint. But that discussion must be on hold until the merge proposals are dealt with.

4. The article is not encyclopedic or "junk".

That a few editors have made unconstructive edits doesn't diminish the article's value. If you drop a diamond ring in the dirt it's still a diamond. The solution is it needs cleaning and polishing, not throwing it away. Merging or deleting is akin to throwing it away.

Ryoung122 15:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What sources use the term "longevity myths" and how do they define it ... or what do they include in the category?Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Lots of sources use the term, or similar constructs such as "myths of longevity." Basically they are ideas that explain why humans believe that people live longer than the scientific evidence shows the maximum lifespan to be.Ryoung122 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you give me some concrete examples of this. What sources exactly? How exactly do they define the term? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I can.

First, it's important to note that terms may evolve. "Ultracentenarian" in the 1870s became "supercentenarian" in the 1970s.

We see that the term for "longevity myths" evolved, from "myths about longevity" and "myths of longevity" to "longevity myths." First, some precursors:

Age structure of Soviet population in the Caucasus: facts and myths ZA Medvedev - The Biology of human ageing, 1986 - ... Very little effort is necessary to show this. And yet, very few scientists are really interested in challenging the myths about longevity and super-longevity. The general public likes and easily believes the stories about longevity and super-longevity. ... Cited by 6 - Related articles

[BOOK] Forever young: a cultural history of longevity L Boia - 2004 - ... The doctors were not concerned with repeating the feats of Medea. Neither Hippocrates (c. 460-0. 337 BC), regarded as the founder of medical science, nor his emulator Galen (c. AD 130-0.200) were great enthusiasts for the longevity of myth. ... Cited by 9 - Related articles - Find It @ GSU - Library Search

The Mediterranean Diet: Origins and Myths Full Text @ GSUA Trichopoulou - New England Journal of Medicine, 2001 - ... antioxidants. They review ancient myths of longevity and discuss diets and dietary supplements aimed at averting aging. They point out that proponents of such treatments, in fact, have died at the expected age and of the usual causes. ... Cited by 2 - Related articles - All 2 versions

Note that later, the term used is now "longevity myths":

BOOK] Searching for longevity determinants: following survival of newborns in a in-land village in Sardinia (1866-2006) L Salaris - 2009 - ... Since ancient times, the search for a longer life has generated longevity myths such as the existence of a fountain of youth, or of a place Translation: "All civilizations, irrespective of time, place and life's vicissitudes, consider with the utmost regard their elderly, those who have ... Cited by 1 - Related articles - Find It @ GSU - All 4 versions

[BOOK] Living to 100 and Beyond T Harris - 2009 - ... 4B.....61 Chapter 5 Longevity Claims: Fact or Fiction 5.1 Introduction.....63 5.2 Longevity Myths.....64 5.2 ... Related articles - Find It @ GSU - Library Search - All 2 versions

Ryoung122 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, the works you cite that discuss things like "fact vs. myth" are not using "myth" in the technical sense, and not surprisingly they are from medical fields. One of your sources states "longevity of myth" which does not mean "longevity myth" or "myth of longevity" ... you might want to double check that one. There is only one reference you have listed which uses myth in a way that is related to the subject matter we are discussing, and is related to myth technically understood, and that is the source discussing the fountain of youth. That is, most certainly, an example of myth/folktale which has human longevity as a main theme or motif. I agree about this. However, those types of tales are unrelated to 99% of the content in the current entry -- including the ancient materials which are merely claims of human age found within mythical stories, or in ancient lists. They are not myths about longevity. Do you see the difference here? If you can source an entry on myths that actually have longevity as a major motif, I'm all with you, but otherwise we just have the same OR listcruft that we've been discussing all along.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
First off, my name is "Robert."

Second, your above comment is a bit disappointing. You did not seriously consider the material I posted. Look again. "A cultural history of longevity" is NOT about longevity? Clearly that's B.S.

All the above sources deal with the idea of longevity as myth.

Here's my own thesis, which won a national award.

Ryoung122 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Robert you may be interested in the response to my query at the RS/N. See here for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of Kama Chinen

I missed your March comment about the upload of the Kama Chinen image. I've re-uploaded it. Sorry, Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 09:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is back on

PhilKnight has offered to co-mediate. I responded to quite a few of your edits before noticing this so I'd propose you bring any new issues that may currently exist to your opening-response section there, in a short appendix, and we proceed from there. I'm still good with my issue list. Thank you. JJB 19:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight is now mediating disagreement between Itsmejudith and us on whether longevity articles should exist at all. Would you like to join in so that we can get to the point of mediating between me and you instead? Thanks. It's no time to default now. JJB 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a link. One thing about Wikipedia is that it is NOT as stable as it should be. It's incredulous that this is even being debated.Ryoung122 18:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Referring to:

Regarding THIS: Garrett Morgan did not only invent the traffic signal. He invented the gas mask and also some hair dye and other things. These are just the popular things he invented. He is probably a great man because he saved lives of workers during an explosion in an underground mine. Blacky98 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC) It's a 100% fabricated lie that Garrett Morgan invented the traffic signal. Do some research. Checking the documents, this myth was invented in the 1970s by the U.S. Dept of Education as a way to promote feel-good stories about African-American "heroes." However, checking the actual, real evidence, it's clear that Garrett Morgan's traffic signal device was NOT first, NOT the first to be patented, and NOT the device that led to the modern traffic light. In fact, it was more like a railroad-crossing device. It's a shame that people are still judging others by the color of their skin, rather than by what they really did.Ryoung122 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for teaching me that Garrett Morgan didn't invent the traffic signal. How kind. Also, I didn't judge because of his skin... just to let you know I actually apologize, because that was 2 years ago, and I was pretty immature... I shall no longer post opinions and things I got from my school in the Talk section I apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacky98 (talkcontribs) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found out about Garrett Morgan in a graduate class, where an older white man told me that African-American students needed to be told stories like this (even if not true) to feel better about themselves.

Personally, I think there are plenty of true African American heroes without the need to make up false ones. Of course, these aren't the only kinds of historical-invention myths; the most-popular is the "Wright brothers invented the airplane," but that involved the use of political and contractual influence to force acceptance. The Wright brothers' monoplane was able to lift off the ground only due to the wind blowing about 40mph that day; replicas made in still air have never succeeded in attaining flight.

Check out also the article about Gustave Whitehead.Ryoung122 18:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jan Goossenaerts

I would like to know what your opinions are on this recently created, Jan Goossenaerts has been given an afd, please send this information to anyone who can help. Longevitydude (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Oldest Living Men

Ryoung122 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

More attacks from JJBulten, who has politicized Wikipedia.Ryoung122 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia: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 (Talk Contribs) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

"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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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)


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)


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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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)

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 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 Wikipedia's core policies.Ryoung122 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

more afds

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)


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 Wikipedia's policies.

To be continued.Ryoung122 23:47, 17 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. And while Wikipedia worries about the reliability of outside sources, outside sources (i.e., academia) never consider Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

Proposed deletion of Elsa Moberg

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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 Wikipedia 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

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 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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


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. 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:

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)
That was about city population data. If you followed my recent edit summaries, you might have noticed that I was adding city population data to cities such as San Antonio, Texas. Your actions, not mine, are objectionable here. They indicate wiki-stalking. Get off my talk page, David in DC, and don't come back.Ryoung122 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I welcome comment from more reasonable editors (such as Blade of Northern Lights).Ryoung122 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to Longevity (broadly interpreted);
  2. Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
  3. John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
  4. WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
  5. 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)

I'm not sure what is meant by "evidence" sub-pages, but if someone wants to sweep something under the rug, that is for others to do.Ryoung122 07:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AE Decorum

Sections entitled "Result concerning x" have a subheader, This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.. Please do not comment in this section, and especially do not leave paragraphs of commentary there, as you are neither uninvolved or an administrator. Comments placed there will be moved, or removed. Courcelles 06:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

This is to let you know that I have requested the WP: Arbitration Enforcement relating to User: NickOrnstein to be extended to cover off-wiki canvassing on the 110 Club website, and you appear to be involved in that. I have requested that your topic-ban be extended to a full ban. Please comment there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Is his misconduct extending to areas outside of longevity? If not, I don't think a full ban makes sense if he's contributing successfully and without issues in other articles. A 2 week block (or whatever) makes more sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, please stop with the hysterical allegations. My noting that another editor (also a woman) lives in the same country as you has ZERO suggestion of any personal visitation, and I highly resent your witch-hunt accusations. It was rather a suggestion of cultural commonality. I don't know the address or city or even county of either you nor Melissa. You should reflect on your statements and calm down.

In regard to topic-banning, we have had David in DC incorrectly suggest that a topic-ban on Wikipedia extends to the professional reputation of the person's activities outside Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is a violation of Wikipedia core policies on "No Original Research" and "Reliable Sources." My work has been accepted by Science Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc. You really should apologize and you and David in DC should take two weeks off, maybe a month, and realize that this is "not about you." When you nominate for deletion articles that have existed for years and years, and fight against outside mainstream consensus, maybe you are the problem. Are you and David in DC more reliable than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or Science Magazine? I think not.

Ryoung122 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll honor your request to stay off the talk page connected to the RYoung122 avatar, with two caveats:
I'll post here if something I do requires me to notify you.
And I'll post here if you mention me. I am not more reliable, as that term is defined at WP:RS, than the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or Science Magazine. Neither is IMJ. And neither are you. I've said it before, but it bears repeating. "Reliable" has a dictionary meaning. In that sense, you may well be more reliable than me. Or IMJ. But as defined in WP:RS, none of us are reliable. One root of this whole kerfuffle is the inability, or unwillingness, to accept that "reliable" is what's called a term of art, on wikipedia. You may well be reliable to watch my child, post my bail, or correct my grammar. But on wikipedia, "reliable" isn't about that.
Since you once commented on the fact that "At least you have a sense of humor..." on my talk page, I'll offer you a joke you may have heard before, playing off of the last sentence in your post above.
Descartes walks into a cafe.
The waiter asks: "Will you be having coffee today, Monsieur Descartes?"
Descartes responds "I think not."
And disappears. David in DC (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That was almost funny, David. If that's an olive branch, let's start with:

1. You need to apologize for confusing census 2010 data with (topic-banned subject). Did you know that census records are confidential for 72 years? There's ZERO connection between census 2010 and (topic-banned subject).

2. Whether I'm topic-banned (or not) has no bearing on whether I am quotable.

I'm in the news again this week in Australia. No biggie.

Ryoung122 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've replied hereDavid in DC (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)72 years? Why and which coutnry? Kittybrewster 07:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify for Kittybrewster, also known as BHG's pet: the U.S.


Although censuses are a source of genealogical information, the Census Bureau does not provide these data. The Census Bureau is not able to locate missing persons, or provide recent information on individuals.

In keeping with the Census Bureau's commitment to confidentiality, the Census Bureau information collected in the Decennial Census of Population and Housing on individuals does not become available to the public until after 72 years.

In some countries, it might be longer than that.Ryoung122 05:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Result of the enforcement request at WP:AE#NickOrnstein

Please see the result of this enforcement request, which contains a reminder to you of the scope of the topic ban which Arbcom imposed. If you continue to make off-wiki comments encouraging people to participate in debates about our longevity articles in a certain way, you may be subject to sanctions under the existing ban. As our guideline states, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement Request

I've requested ArbCom Enforcement here in reference to your recent edits on my talk page and on the MOS talk page. You may wish to respons. David in DC (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating your topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Comment: It might not be worth the time and effort to appeal this 72-hour block, but the reality of it is that DavidinDC, NOT me, has once again stretched the boundaries of reality. FLAGS are NOT "longevity" topics. Unless we're talking about "how long flags live."
It's also clear that the unfair wording of my politically-pushed topic ban needs to be amended, as it is so unclear as to make interpretation difficult and variable.Ryoung122 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was entirely about flag icons on longevity-related articles. Please re-read the discussion, if you have any doubt about this.
You've asked me to stay off this talk page, I've said I will, with two exceptions. When you mischaracterize my actions or when the rules require me to give you notice. In this case, it's the former. "DavidinDC [sic], NOT me, has once again stretched the boundaries of reality." <--------- This is simply untrue. David in DC (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

David in DC Watchlist

regarding the assertion of topic-ban violations: it has already been stated, firstly, that defense against personal attack is allowed. Second, let's review the topic ban again:

"Ryoung122 topic-banned2.2) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Note the above word, ARTICLES. I'm not commenting about articles, but about inappropriate material being put on TALK pages by David in DC.

Therefore, I assert the below material is appropriate here, on my talk page.

Below is a list of taunts, aspersions, and other inappropriate behavior exhibited by David in DC(under construction) towards me:

Ryoung122 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Professor Irwin Corey taunt:

Professor Irwin Coreyused to bill himself as "The World's Formost Expert". Does anyone else think the identifier in this edit seems similar? I'm just sayin'. David in DC (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A talk page discussion is part of 'commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldest trees is a longevity article

I copy-edited the lede to the list of oldest trees, a day or two ago. I went back this morning, to review my edits with fresh eyes. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to find this edit. List of oldest trees is a longevity article. It's included in the longevity template, {{longevity}}. Please do not edit longevity articles. It's a violation of the sanctions we must follow after the ArbCom decision. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

David in DC Watchlist

regarding the assertion of topic-ban violations: it has already been stated, firstly, that defense against personal attack is allowed. Second, let's review the topic ban again:

"Ryoung122 topic-banned2.2) Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity, broadly interpreted."

Passed 11 to 0 at 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Note the above word, ARTICLES. I'm not commenting about articles, but about inappropriate material being put on TALK pages by David in DC.

Therefore, I assert the below material is appropriate here, on my talk page.

Below is a list of taunts, aspersions, and other inappropriate behavior exhibited by David in DC(under construction) towards me:

Ryoung122 22:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Professor Irwin Corey taunt:

Professor Irwin Coreyused to bill himself as "The World's Formost Expert". Does anyone else think the identifier in this edit seems similar? I'm just sayin'. David in DC (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A talk page discussion is part of 'commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oldest trees is a longevity article

I copy-edited the lede to the list of oldest trees, a day or two ago. I went back this morning, to review my edits with fresh eyes. I was shocked, shocked I tell you to find this edit. List of oldest trees is a longevity article. It's included in the longevity template, {{longevity}}. Please do not edit longevity articles. It's a violation of the sanctions we must follow after the ArbCom decision. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Marcus00.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marcus00.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Longevity-Related Issues


I was first invited to work on Wikipedia articles on Longevity when the project was in its infancy (circa 2004), although my current ID dates to Feb 2005 (more than six years ago). When Wikipedia was first beginning, it had some ideas more in line with Citizendium...that is, articles would be written by those persons who were knowledgeable about the topic field.

Over time, Wikipedia has become more "egalitarian." It is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". This has sometimes led to conflict between those who are knowledgeable about the material, which should be encyclopedic, and those who wish to edit regardless of qualifications. Indeed, it may be a convenient fiction in my mind that Wikipedia "should" be based on a secular, scientific, encyclopedic viewpoint when it comes to articles on human longevity. After all, should this not be an encyclopedia? Occasionally, I made edits that were probably right, but often my talk-page behavior left something to be desired. I could use a dose of "assuming good faith" and working with people, rather than expecting them to see things the way I see them. That said, I sometimes run into people who are difficult, agressive, and pushing a POV that may be grounded in something they believe in but may not be correct according to mainstream, outside sources. For some, the temptation becomes to make things into a chess match, rather than a place where editors collaborate.

In the last ArbCom decision in February 2011, I was "topic-banned" from editing Longevity-related materials "indefinitely." In a tit-for-tat, "battleground" environment, where another, rival editor was suspended for one year, that may have felt like a fair and just punishment according to some, but it leaves the question unresolved. What does "indefinitely" mean?

Wikipedia's policies, in fact, state that Wikipedia administrative blocks, bans, or other sanctions are not really punishments but are meant to "protect Wikipedia." If that's the case, then I feel that Wikipedia does not have to worry about "protecting" itself from me. Having two Masters's degrees and a well-proportioned sense of justice and equanimity, I do feel that my contributions to Wikipedia have, on the whole, been positive and worth the effort. My interests are varied, from botany to geography to longevity. In one of those fields, longevity (a sub-field of gerontology), I happen to be an "expert" defined by having work published in journal articles, magazines, newspaper stories, etc. and working for scientific endeavors in the field, as well as commercial applications. Because I have a sense of propriety, I realize that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion or to make edits which are "conflict of interest." For that reason, I almost enjoyed the "topic ban" that has been in place since February.

Nonetheless, after several months, I have come to feel that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia. I think the "WOP" articles need to shift focus from current events (changes in rankings) to the larger issues: are we living longer now than in the past? Why does the pace of increase seem to be slowing? Why do women tend to live longer than men? What component of human longevity is biological? And, why is there such an ingrained cultural acceptance of the myths of human longevity, when the evidence in favor of the scientific data is so strong and nearly unanimous? I also realize that the sub-field of the study of human longevity may be considered a "proto-science." For me, that makes it all the more important to work towards the education of future generations in regards to the answers to the questions of how long we are living today, how long humans lived in the past, and how long humans can expect to live in the future. Since such a field has a large chasm between demonstrated scientific evidence and popular perceptions of longevity in the media, I do feel that work must be done to ensure that Wikipedia reflects the mainstream scientific viewpoint of longevity.

Wikipedia is one of the ten most-widely visited websites in the world, and it is the first source that most young people today turn to for answers to their questions. Wikipedia is also slightly weighted in favor of the young and current-even history. This may be due to the fact that older generations are less adept at new technology and more ingrained in the "old ways" of doing things. Like wanting to hold onto camera film when digital is the way of the future, sometimes old ideas get left behind. For me personally, I am 37 years old, the median age in the U.S.: I am neither young nor old, but right in the middle. I can see both points, and I work with persons from as old as 115 to as young as 13. Few persons can say that.

Sometimes, when I come to Wikipedia articles, I notice that something is "not quite right." At other times, there may be a major error. Should I just ignore it? Should I pass it on to someone who can fix it? In order to play by the rules, the correct mode of action would be for me to apply for my topic-ban to be lifted and then it would be OK for me to make the edits myself or to ask others to do it. As a researcher, I don't have time to spend hours on end with small formatting issues, but I could make philosophical recommendations and corrections on the "Talk" page.

David in DC, an editor that I have sometimes come into conflict with in the past, has suggested that "one year plus one day" is too long a suspension. It has been nearly 8 months. I have yet to ask for the indefinite suspension be changed. I am not sure if the time is right at the moment, but whether the time is politically right or not is not the chief concern. Whether other people feel the time is right for my return is. Thus, I am putting out a feeler-request that those involved in the ArbCom decision in February 2011 would consider changing the terms. I thank you for your time.

Regards Ryoung122 22:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no power to modify the current sanctions, but I do have an opinion. As indicated above, Robert and I have been in email contact with one another. He wrote, I responded. Rinse, lather repeat. I've been careful not to discus editing longevity articles and careful not to tempt Robert into a conversation that led in that direction. We've discussed general wiki-editing philosophy and the scope of the ArbCom sanctions currently imposed. If sanctions are, indeed, for correction and protection, rather than for punishment, I'm convinced, at least provisionally, that they have achieved their goals as to the Ryoung122 avatar under which Robert edits. If no less responsible for the prior WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere within the World's Oldest People wikiproject and longevity suite of articles than JJB, Ryoung112 was certainly no more responsible. If his topic ban were to last longer than JJB's total ban, I would think that unjust.
Above, and in our correspondence, Robert and his avatar seem to "get" why the sanctions were imposed. Of more importance, looking forward, his declarations seem more in line with collaborative editing than they did in the weeks and months leading up to his topic ban.
WP:AGF, plus the fact that Robert's initial off-wiki email to me about his topic ban arrived just an hour before Yom Kippur began for me, leave me inclined, and curious, to see if actions would follow words. I haven't double-checked about whether the ban has been in effect for eight months, but I take it as given. It would be dumb to misrepresent something so easily checked and, whatever adjectives might apply to Ryoung122, dumb ain't one of them.
So JJB's total ban and Robert's topic ban have, if unmodified, four more months to run. If ArbCom were to entertain a motion to modify the sanctions, even if only to test the commitments suggested above, I would have no quarrel with that approach. Disinterested, wiki-savvy editors/admins ought to be watching, to make sure actions follow words, and to take action of their own if Ryoung122's actions don't. But under that kind of "watchful hopefulness" regime, I think modifying the sanctions would be worth the risk.
What sane editor/admins would volunteer to place themselves in the position of "watchful hopers" (or perhaps "hopeful watchers") is a question I cannot answer, but there may be some. On my talk page, Ryoung122 indicates that he's invited an editor/admin of near-saintly patience and good sense, EdJohnston, to opine on the instant thread. I imagine he would have illuminating input to provide here, should he choose to do so. He rarely provides any other kind.
At the risk of proving that no good deed goes unpunished, I might suggest another potential "hopeful watcher", who has acted as a disinterested referee of the current ArbCom sanctions in the past. But rather than put this editor on the spot, I think I'll go to his talk page and ask him to participate in this thread, should he be so moved. I ask all concerned not to stalk my next edit and then try to influence that editor's decision about whether to get involved. This isn't his main area of interest and he might not want to devote the time and energy to the experiment I'm suggesting. David in DC (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That "disinterested referee" David in DC refers to is me, I guess. While I am not particularly interested in the longevity topic, I did become interested in involving myself in an administrative capacity only, to offer occasional opinions about sourcing or, if necessary, enforce ArbCom decisions.
Ryoung122's question about the meaning of "indefinite" is apt. On Wikipedia, the word is often used as a synonym for "forever" and in many cases that is the appropriate meaning. But that word, I like to think, was chosen carefully, to leave room for redemption.
I think the proposal to review "indefinite" at the one year anniversary of the topic ban is fair. My lingering concern here is Ryoung122's attitude toward the weight that Wikipedia should give to expertise. Expertise is welcome in cases an expert is needed to make a topic approachable and understandable to a layman. However, some of Ryoung123's past writings that suggest expertise can be a substitute for verifiable, reliable sources on Wikipedia. That is most certainly not the case. While I appreciate the thoughtful and introspective words of Ryoung123 above, I am not sure that he fully understands this important point.
I fully agree with the statement "Wikipedia is also slightly weighted in favor of the young and current-even history." I consider that one of Wikipedia's banes; far too much pop-culture stuff, but that's OK as long as the important, meaningful topics are covered also. I say this from the point of view of one of the older folks here, who got comfortable with computers in the early 1970s. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest a two-step compromise. First, I'm really more interested at the moment in focusing on developing objective methods for Wikipedia for organizing the information on supercentenarians, in particular. I would like to know if we can revise the topic ban now to include just material that some might find "conflict of interest" (i.e., I would refrain from editing articles or adding sources from or about the GRG, Guinness, and other organizations I have done work for). In that sense, I could only edit material based on "third-party" news reporting, such as a newspaper report. That sounds fair. I'd like to hear what you think about it.Ryoung122 22:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I obviously am not privy to the e-mail communications between you and David in DC, but if it's gone as swimmingly as it seems to I'd certainly like having an expert back in the field of longevity. Your work in organizing this information would be supremely helpful, and I really can't see how your presence there would be detrimental. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs Stability

Probably the biggest flaw with Wikipedia is that, since "anyone can edit," edits sometimes are not in the best interest of the subject material covered. And while vandalism is easily identifiable, perhaps more damaging are edits by those who may be "assuming good faith" but know little about the material they are editing.

In the past, humans have learned through apprenticeship, learning from elders the skills needed to do the job. Unfortunately, there is very little on-the-job training on Wikipedia, which creates a problem. Wikipedia needs more mentorship. Also, people tend to act first and ask questions later. It would be better to ask questions first and then act. Points to ponder.Ryoung122 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship. There is no shortage of mentors, according to the page Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters.
Also, your comment above seems to conflate two issues. There's a difference between editors who know little about the material they are editing, and editors who know little about how Wikipedia works. The former problem is corrected by our standards (policies) and best practices (guidelines) regarding sources. The latter problem arises from a lack of knowledge of our policies and guidelines, and can be addressed a number of ways, including blocks, bans, and mentorship. Mentorship on Wikipedia isn't a means to transmit expertise on an article topic. That's what verifiable, reliable sources are for. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think both issues would be better served with mentorship, but most "newbies" that start out on Wikipedia are not even aware of Wikipedia:Mentorship, so they are unlikely to request it. In any case, my philosophy is that we can learn from those who have gone before but we should not be held back from coming into our own, either. As a 37-year-old, I'm actually a bit on the young side in academia, but on Wikipedia, I may be a bit on the old side. So, I can see it both ways.
Also, my perspectives are not based just on areas that I have "expertise" in. I have interests in botany, taxonomy, geography, et cetera. I used to read the Encyclopedia Britannica...though I only got through letters A-Ph, so only ask me about material from the first half of the alphabet.Ryoung122 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Probably the biggest flaw with Wikipedia is that, since 'anyone can edit,'". It's our biggest flaw and greatest asset. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
True, new editors generally learn about mentorship when they get into trouble. I have seen newbies request it on their own, though. Nevertheless, when a person needs mentorship on Wikipedia, I have never seen one who requires coaching in expertise. They need coaching in mechanics of editing, civility, being neutral, understanding policies, or proper conduct during a dispute or while blocked.
My observation, as someone on the tail of the age distribution, is that the topics of interest to the younger crowd focus more on pop-culture and controversy, things they can be passionate about. That isn't true in all cases (we have a high school student interested in longevity topics, for example). But for subjects like botany, taxonomy, and other science topics, one is likely to be dealing with older, more experienced and knowledgeable editors anyway. Again, this is just my impression after several years here. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, It if was not clear, I am only "topic-banned" (indefinitely) from the material that I am most familiar with, i.e., that of supercentenarians. I continue to freely edit in other subject areas.

Ryoung122 05:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychoanalyze This

1. Tall People Make Fun of Short People

2. Straight People Make Fun of Gay People

3. Nordic Europeans Make Fun of "Mediterranean" Europeans

Sorry, I fail to see the humor in any of those scenarios. Rather, these scenarios reflect poorly on the persons making those remarks.Ryoung122 06:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice Farve

Hello, Ryoung. Can you take a look at the Beatrice Farve article for a minute and confirm for me that the info about her becoming Catholic in 1933 is from The Southern Cross? I had that sentence tagged because it isn't mentioned in the other two sources, and since The Southern Cross is only archived to January 2009 on the diocesan website, I can't confirm it myself. I looked at issues of The Southern Cross for several 20 weeks after her death in January 2009, but haven't found a mention of it (which strikes me as odd -- did she get excommunicated for voting for Obama? lol.). Thanks! --Kenatipo speak! 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm currently topic-banned from this topic for the moment and thus I'm not supposed to answer this question. Thank you!Ryoung122 21:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Hope you get unbanned soon. --Kenatipo speak! 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to open a new case at WP:AE, and propose un-banning there. You've already posted a good draft of your argument on this talk page above. Cut out any editorial comments and other non-relevant stuff (like the first half of the second paragraph, as well as all of paragraph 6). ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thuja plicata

Hi, I think that if you want to, you could totally remove all mention of "true cedars" from the Thuja plicata page. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "pluralism" approach suggests that multiple major points of view should be given. So, we can call the "Western Red Cedar" a "cedar" as it is commonly known, but at the same time make it clear that scientists don't classify it as a "true" cedar.Ryoung122 17:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Atlanta metropolitan area, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Midtown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

World's oldest active performer

Per: this. The majority of voters is in favour of posting this news fact with the changed blurb. But it still has not been posted. Could you perhaps do the honour? It'll go stale otherwise. You seem to be interested in longevity records and such, so I thought you might be interested in this. Mr. Heesters was, after all, a very prominent old man, who was prominent because of his career rather then his age, and his death was pretty big news. Thanks already. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Messex, Colorado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Midtown and Buckhead

Neighborhoods are officially defined by the City of Atlanta and the city publishes maps with all the boundaries (click on an NPU to get the NPU map). There is thus an official Midtown neighborhood which does NOT include Ansley Park, Sherwood Forest, Atlantic Station, Home Park, Loring Heights, which are all separate neighborhoods. Midtown Alliance DOES include most of those as part of their Midtown "district". This has no "official" status - but I do recognize Midtown Alliance as some sort of authority in that they are a chamber of commerce - so we are both correct.

However, Buckhead also borders Lindridge-Martin Manor and Piedmont Heights (see NPU F Map) and are not regarded by anyone as part of Midtown. So you would have to say "Midtown District" + those two neighborhoods...

To call Bolton etc. Midtown West is done by real estate agents, but most people would not say that is Midtown West. (as explained in the Wikipedia article Midtown West). Besides, [ some others define Midtown West quite differently}. So, no harm in being exact and saying which officially defined neighborhoods are there.

I have made changes which attempt to name the correct "districts" while still remaining correct according to the City's definitions.

(the above message is unsigned...please sign messages)

Just to respond to the above comment, the above is mostly untrue. The city of Atlanta defines Midtown differently for different purposes. For example, the Midtown taxi rate zone from the Atlanta airport, defined by the city, includes all the said neighborhoods. It is understood that there is an "original Midtown" neighborhood and a larger "zone" or "district" defined as "Midtown."Ryoung122 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


FYI: Anglicisation: "is the process of converting verbal or written elements of any other language into a form that is more comprehensible to an English speaker, or, in general, of altering something such that it becomes English in form or character." - English the language not the people (British).

It has nothing to do with making something more "British" or "global". I believe you were trying to use it as the opposite of Americanization, a phenomenon where American values and culture are acquired by other societies. "England" is where the English language has it's roots, and has evolved from there in various regions of the world. There is American English, Canadian English, Aussie English, "modern" British English, and many others, all of which have equal value and merit. The number of English speakers in one country versus another is not a reason to value one variety of English over another. --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is incredulous. Attempting to make Americans conform to "British" values is Cultural Imperialism. There's a reason we had a revolution in 1776.Ryoung122 20:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You obviously have a problem with the English Language. No one is trying to make you conform to anything. I was was just trying to explain your mi-use of a term. Have a great day.--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the "English" language. I'm pointing out the problem of Wikipedia not having versions tailored to individual nations.Ryoung122 22:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

List of oldest living people by nation

[1] I thought you were topic-banned. Was the ban lifted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The ban was for an "indefinite" time period, not forever.

In any case, do you think claims to "127" should be "national" records?Ryoung122 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an indefinite topic ban, too, but you don't see me violating it. For your own sake, you should self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate of Miami

All right; I accept your point, so apologies. However, there remains an error: -27 °F does not correspond to -1 °C, so "The coldest temperature ever recorded in the city of Miami was 27 °F (-1 °C)" cannot be correct. If 27 °F is right, then the (rounded) metric equivalent should be -3 °C. Loganberry (Talk) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Climate of Atlanta

I don't think there's anyone actively keeping the content up, it would be great if you could help improve it.Keizers (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article? I'm very familiar with Atlanta's climate.Ryoung122 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

History section of Atlanta

Please see Talk:Atlanta#Historical_Balance_and_the_.22Social_Other.22 Keizers (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Ryoung122. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)