Archives

2/18/2005 to 8/30/2006 8/31/2006 to 9/20/2006 9/21/2006 to 5/31/2007 6/1/2007 to 8/31/2007 9/1/2007 to 10/15/2007 10/16/2007 to 11/24/2007 8/26/2008 to 7/11/2009 7/18/2009 to 8/24/2010 8/28/2010 to

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In the article "list of disputed supercentenarian claimants" Transito Ayala from Colombia is one of the limbo cases. I think it is very important to find out if she is alive. Her alleged birthdate is 13 August 1896. After the death of Eunice Sanborn the oldest person of the world is Besse Cooper, born on 26 August 1896. Transito Ayala would be the oldest living person of the world if her birthday is correct. It is possible to find out if Transito Ayala is still alive or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.134.97 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Greetings,

I already made it more than clear that I was busy and unavailable from November 15 to December 15, 2010.

I therefore request an extension or postponement to next month (December 16 or afterward).

I will point out that this involves issues much larger than simply personal likes and dislikes and individual editors getting along...it is akin to issues such as teaching creationism vs. evolution in schools...only in this case, what we have is scientific longevity versus religious fundamentalist views on longevity.

Let me be succinct: JJBulten pushes the "creationist" POV, as a political and religious lobbyist who does this as part of an agenda that is not conducive to Wikipedia's core policies.Ryoung122 00:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WOP#Common_deletion_outcomes

I know you might agree with some of these, and thats ok, but I know youll have something to say about it, even if we disagree I still value your opinions. Longevitydude (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/us/louisiana.oldest.african.american_1_mississippi-winn-gerontology-research-group-supercentenarians?_s=PM:US

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)[reply]

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)

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:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-15/us/louisiana.oldest.african.american_1_mississippi-winn-gerontology-research-group-supercentenarians?_s=PM:US

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Robert,

To make up for what I did last year I brought back your wikipedia article. I think this is the right time because It's been almost 4 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29 Plyjacks (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will be searching for this, but I already found something on DavidinDC:

whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians

OK, here's more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Guzm%C3%A1n-Garc%C3%ADa

whether they are biased against non-western centenarians

Checking out the article on African supercentenarians and the AFD, JJB notes he would go after the European article later.

in fact, those two were discussing strategies for deletion of supercentenarian-related articles. They went after Africa and South America first, then planned to go after Europe (which did not occur): see List of African supercentenarians.

The irony is that their clipping of the Africa and South American articles makes 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've filed an enforcement request here. David in DC (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The enforcement request has been closed as not actionable. AGK [•] 20:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I welcome comment from more reasonable editors (such as Blade of Northern Lights).Ryoung122 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've replied hereDavid in DC (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)72 years? Why and which coutnry? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/

Genealogy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]