User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights

In support of the Karen National Union and their ongoing struggle against genocide.

Redirect

I changed your CSD on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Need_For_Speed_Hot_Pursuit&redirect=no to what I assume is an uncontroversial redirect, is that ok?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD fail!

wow. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, how did that get through? I'll probably renominate it in a month or two. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Greetings,

Regarding this dispute:

Erm... where did I enter into this? I didn't have anything to do with the (now deleted) article on Robert Young; I didn't create, tag, or delete it (not that I could have deleted it, not being an admin). If you're talking more generally, outside this specific recreation, open up another section and I'll respond there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I noted was you reported this page creation (by Plyjacks) to David in DC, who then tagged it for deletion.

I would have felt a lot more comfortable had a neutral, third-party person noticed the article and made a judgment call.

Some facts:

1. I did not know that Plyjacks planned to re-create the article.

2. As discussed in the 2007 AFD, Carcharoth, Crusio, and others agreed that there was enough material on me to add a paragraph to the Extreme longevity tracking article. However, I think that article should start with persons from 100+ years ago, like Thomas Emley Young. So, yes, I agree there is a bit of "recentism."

3. Whether I warrant an article or not, this was deleted before I even had a chance to read what it said. So, I was more concerned with that than whether the article should or should not exist.

4. While you seem more reasonable than JJB (religious fanatic and self-proclaimed paranoid psychotic) and David in DC (who tries to be a ham while "sticking it to" people to irritate them), I'm concerned about whether the Wikipedia "whack a mole" tendency is all fair.

I note, for example, that the GRG has material published by a third-party source, such as here:

Erm... where did I enter into this? I didn't have anything to do with the (now deleted) article on Robert Young; I didn't create, tag, or delete it (not that I could have deleted it, not being an admin). If you're talking more generally, outside this specific recreation, open up another section and I'll respond there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet, we have JJB then attacking Rejuvenation Research. It seems that he has no limit. Moreover, he continues to not follow Wiki protocol, from:

A. "Voting" on his own deletion proposals B. Mass-nominating AFD's C. It was JJB who launched the so-called "Bolding War" (his words), then he cites opposition to his changes as evidence of a "Walled Garden." Walled or not, why are such attacks not called into question? D. JJB is a "party" to the ArbCom, yet he has self-proclaimed himself innocent and others guilty. Since when is a prosecutor also a judge? E. Citing himself as policy (which was his own recent edits, and he failed to notify others of changes, and then claiming "silence is consent") F. Mislabelling others as "Conflict of Interest." CanadaJack, DerbyNZ, Brendan, etc. all have NO "Conflict of Interest". Brendan is a 15-year-old kid who runs an amateur blog. How is that COI? G. JJB intentionally tried to "stir the pot" by involving other editors from disputes 3+ years ago. Is this a way to find consensus, or cause more problems?

I'm posting this because you seem rather more mundane and reasonable than JJB or David in DC. David in DC is NOT under the same influence as JJB, but rather he seems to be egotistical and still edits based on his personal whim rather than what outside sources say.

So, we have several issues to discuss:

1. ArbCom behavior of editors (including JJB and his multiple transgressions). I can see where some might find me over-the-top, but most of the time I am like a linebacker pointing out a false start on the other side.

2. Wiki policy regarding "reliable sources" and "biographies of living persons".

Note that we have several issues. First off, many/most supercentenarians are deceased, and most of the "living" articles are just lists. Those don't fall under BLP. That leaves only a few articles under BLP to discuss.

The fact of the matter is, the GRG is cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Guinness World Records, the AP, APF, etc. Not only that, it's a NONPROFIT organization. So one can argue whether COI even applies to the GRG.

COI "might" apply to Guinness World Records, but I'm not adding GWR citations.

Rather, I have been opposing blanket deletions of articles based on policy misinterpretation.

I hold a very high standard for creating articles based on the intersection of longevity and notability. I don't create articles on 111-year-olds, in general. I cite 111-year-olds in local papers as being not yet individually notable, perhaps notable for a list. I believe that notability begins when cases are cited nationally or internationally (such as Frank Buckles).

Yet, often kids (teenagers/fans) create articles on people who just turned 110, or even age 109. In some cases I opposed deletion because the arguments for deletion were incorrect. People would say things like "supercentenarians can't be notable" instead of "some supercentenarians may be notable, but this one doesn't have significant coverage."

The other issue is that of "one event." If someone was reported just for their death, that may be "one event." But if they were reported for their 113th birthday and then a year later at 114, that's NOT "one event." Moreover, "one event" is, by example, a non-notable person interviewed about a fire in NYC and the fire story being covered in multiple sources. In a case like that, it's not only "one event" but a trivial mention.

What's different, when you have someone like Mississippi Winn, is that they are covered in national sources, the articles are about the person (non-trivial mention), and the age was mentioned before (i.e, 113th birthday in March 2010).

For practical purposes, consider Louisa Thiers. The "world's oldest person" in 1926, according to science, the article was unfairly deleted by JJBulten and others. Her coverage has been continuing, over 80+ years, and many of the sources for the article were NOT the GRG. Yet Bulten indicated (and never denies) that he wants to minimize/delete articles on supercentenarians because he believes that people living to 110 aren't notable, when the Bible cites people living to 950. Never mind the fact that even Biblical fundamdentalists like Arthur Custance believed that people "once" lived a lot longer, but not now:

http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch5s.html

See figure 2.

So, when all is said and done:

1. Most of my "violations" have been pointing out other transgressions.

2. We need to have JJBulten dialed back from his "blacklisting" all who disagree with him.

3. We need a discussion of the GRG and reliability. Remember, BLP rules don't apply for dead persons, and don't apply for non-biography articles.

4. We need a discussion of what is COI and what is not. In fact, I was an editor at Wikipedia before I became the "Senior Consultant for Gerontology" for Guinness World Records. Nearly all persons cited as "conflicts" in fact started out on Wikipedia, or edited on Wikipedia long before the so-called "conflict" arose.

5. David in DC has a tendency to misstate the truth in AFD's, often claiming "no sources" when articles had one, two, or even seven or eight sources.

I ask you this: my personal article, how many reliable sources did it have? Do I write the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? One could argue "local notability," but that doesn't mean the source isn't reliable.Ryoung122 05:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll address the substance of this issue tomorrow, when I have time; for now, I just want you to be 100% clear that I am not calling for your head here. I don't want to see you banned from Wikipedia, because I think you have valuable contributions. I know it's easy to see this as Us and Them (although I must say I like that song), but I'm a New Page Patroller who stumbled across this by chance; I have no stake in this. Trust me; I have no love for religious views on longevity, I'm a strong agnostic. More to follow if I can find the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To the Blade of the Northern Lights,

Apparently I have upset you regarding the above ArbCom. I don’t quite know what you mean by being a bit “ducky” and you feel that my comments have been “inflammatory” and unhelpful. I certainly have strong opinions on the above, as I see it as censoring the works of science in the same tradition as the reaction to Charles Darwin and the Scopes Monkey Trial. There are important issues at stake, and I have expressed my opinion. What else am I supposed to do?Cam46136 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Cam46136

How do I warn someone about reverting speedy deletions?

Okay I put one up on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politemps

And then the guy decided to revert it (it is a spam thing as I can tell) so how can I send another warning? Thanks!

Kamkek (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Timneu22

Leaving aside the turn this just took, I think you would be best taking up that case with Fred Bauder, who decided that was the place for the RFC, rather than RFC/U. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Blade, you have email turned off. Send me one and I can reply with the info I just sent Daniel Case. No socks here, just WP:OUTING that I'm not happy with. — Timneu22 · talk 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuttin. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I just sent myself a message; it should be working now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You should have mail. — Timneu22 · talk 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And indeed I do. I'll be around for NPP, for the time being at least; we'll have to carry on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well keep up your shitty work! ;) — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you need a laugh on the way out; here's the entire content of Mount everest migration, which I tagged. "Mount everest migration is what happens annually when Hindu Sherpas move the mountain from india into China. It is a sacred ritual, and has been occurring for the last 10 million years." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I made a request to the Oversight account. Putting the note here so as to not further muddy the edits that need to be redacted. I don't know where the other 'discussion' took place, so hopefully Daniel and Fred will be forthcoming. Syrthiss (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Fred Bauder at his talkpage to explain his thought process; discussion will most likely happen there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, have it watchlisted. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		I know how much new page patrollers only get noticed when they mess up. Don't think it's always that way, as I like the work you do. Thank you! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! That's the 2nd barnstar, and I do appreciate it. I love NPP, and I wouldn't give it up for anything (on-wiki, that is); the recognition isn't necessary, but it's sure thoughtful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Walled Garden?

Greetings,

Let's take a closer look at the disputes regarding supercentenarian articles.

1. Reliability is established by outside sources, not editorial opinion. 2. Yet, we see David in DC in particular make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

"Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by WP:NOR. Whichever way one goes, this GRG web page cannot be the sole source for an article on Wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)"

Allegations made by David in DC A. GRG is a "self-published" source. Actually, it's not. If a family puts up a photo of grandma on a blog and says she's the world's oldest person at 120, that's self-published. If a family sends us the documents that indicate that someone is 114 and, after careful analysis, the GRG decides that the case is true and puts it on the GRG website, that's NOT self-published. Moreoever, if the GRG makes a mistake, it is open to scrutiny. In the past ten years, out of more than 1,000 cases, only two mistakes regarding death reports were made by the GRG...an accuracy rate of 99.8%.

B. The longevity articles on Wikipedia are a "walled garden" that needs pruning. Nonsense. We've already had a lot of trimming. Some of the articles deleted, such as Louisa Thiers, represent the loss of substantial information and smacks of "recentist" bias. The article was sourced to not just GRG material but to public-archive records. As the last child of a Revolutionary War veteran and as the first verified living person to attain age 111 in 1925, and as someone mentioned in both the scientific literature and the very first edition of Guinness World Records, this article should have stayed.

Fact: I don't generally create articles on supercentenarians any more. And when I did, I waited until they were at least 113 and had coverage in sources beyond the local.

C. Supercentenarian coverage is "one event." Aside from the purpose of the "one event" rule, to prevent coverage on non-notable persons who might have been, for example, a witness to a fire, articles about supercentenarians are sourced to material ABOUT THEM rather than trivial mention. And in most cases, the coverage was over a period of time, often several years.

D. The GRG is a "data dump." It's terms like "data dump" that make David in DC part of the problem, not part of the solution. The GRG is a non-profit entity (so much for COI charges) and is governed by U.S. law regarding privacy. Moreoever, it is run by persons with academic credentials (Dr. Coles has a Ph.D., for example). The data is not "dumped" but is instead processed. This process can take a long time, which is why the Wikipedia articles are often updated before the GRG is. So, to suggest that the GRG is a data dump is just being nasty and negative.

E. "The GRG is non-Western-biased." This accusation came after JJBulten and David in DC deleted articles such as List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians. JJBulten even stated that it would be easier to take down the list on European supercentenarians afterwards...by deleting articles on non-Europeans, they could then counter that the data was biased. But the fact is, the data is limited to the state of recordkeeping 110+ years ago. The GRG data is actually more widespread than, for example, IDL data:

http://www.supercentenarians.org/

You can register and logon. By the way, did you notice I'm listed as a contributor?

http://www.supercentenarians.org/project_contributors.htm

The fact is, I am the only person in the world that is associated with all the major supercentenarian databases. They call me "Switzerland". I real life, I come across as neutral. Only on Wikipedia does there seem to be a "problem." Often, that problem is that non-experts come on here and try to edit in ways that are inappripriate. Itsmejudith tried to delete the articles on Longevity Myths and on Oldest People. Ironically, JJB and I agreed on at least one thing...that was a bad idea.

Itsmejudith has since come around to be more reasonable, and others have noticed the misbehavior of JJB, but David in DC's continued negative characterizations of both the GRG and Wikipedia articles on supercentenarians in general is now the biggest problem, assuming JJB's wings are clipped sufficiently.

Coverage on the death of Eunice Sanborn, world's oldest person according to Guinness World Records, generated more than 800 articles in English alone. Whether the GRG exists or does not exist, the fact remains is that the media has long decided that extreme longevity is notable. David in DC's push to delete "old" articles about supercentenarians in the past smacks of recentist biase. It's easier to delete articles on Elsa Moberg than Walter Breuning, but that doesn't make it right.

David in DC's push to delete articles such as Tase Matsunaga was overturned.

In my honest opinion, I have already suggested an objective drawing of the line, with a very high standard, for extreme age and notability:

1. Individual articles are warranted when coverage is continuing and exceeds the local news (i.e., Walter Breuning).

2. Mini-bios are warranted when the person was the oldest in the nation or among the oldest (i.e., Elsie Steele of the UK, to be placed in the List of UK supercentenarians.

3. List-only coverage may be warranted for persons 110+ who do not meet standards 1 and 2, subject to age verification by a third-party reliable source. That could be the GRG. That could be www.recordholders.org, which by the way is not a self-published source either, since Louis Epstein lives in the USA and sends the material to Germany, and the info. isn't about Louis but is about supercentenarians. Or perhaps the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research or the International Database on Longevity.

In conclusion, David in DC has gotten away with a lot, in part because he is a long-term established editor. But much of his editing reflects personal bias, not outside sources.

I note that the GRG list of validated supercentenarians exceeds 1,000 entries, while the Wikipedia list only does the top 100. Is less than 10% too much?Ryoung122 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

List-Format Notability versus Bio-Notability

Greetings,

Words and actions often don't match up. I note that David in DC may seem to be OK with the GRG as a source on the Wikiproject:WOP board, but in several AFD's he went way beyond that, accusing the GRG of being "self-published" (not true), a "data dump" (the data is processed, not dumped), "unreliable," "biased", and lots of other negatives.

No one, not even me, is saying that simply being on a GRG list confers biographical notability. In fact, biographical notability is largely a function of how much attention the supercentenarian and their family want. I note that the Wiki lists even include anonymous cases (no name given, just age and rank), much like a Wikipedia list of editors by edit count.

It seems that others aren't getting what I'm saying. Negative comments like those made at several AFD's by David in DC (such as here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tase_Matsunaga

"Delete There are absolutely no sources in the article's text. Under the "External links" header there's a single link, to a Gerontology Research Group web page. There's some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians or whether they are primary sources, prohibited for citation by NOR"

Now, while I agree that simply listed listed on the GRG list does not establish biographical notability, it SHOULD qualify the person for being on a list, such as the 100 validated oldest persons or something to that effect. The point of the list is not really biography but statistics, to give the reader some idea of how closely-conforming the maximum-attained ages for all humans are when sufficient standards of age verification are employed.

Problems with David in DC's statements: 1. The GRG was given as an external link "for more information," not as a source for Tase Matsunaga. So the criticism of using the GRG as a "source" is invalid here. 2. "Some controversy about whether GRG pages are simply not reliable"...again, notability of the GRG as a reliable source should be established by, for example, an article about the GRG that was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in 2005, and its use as a source by the mainstream media. So, the problem is accusing the GRG of being "not reliable" is based on personal opinion, not outside sources which support the GRG as reliable. 3. "whether they are biased against non-western centenarians"...this is a negative comment that should not be made as there are no outside reliable sources that support such a negative assertion 4. GRG--a primary source?

The way I see it:

A family member applies to the GRG to have "grandma" on the GRG list. The applying family is the original source, the GRG is publishing the material. I don't put my own family members on the GRG lists. It is not a self-published source.

Thus, we have FOUR misrepresentations about the GRG by David in DC in just one AFD. This has been a repeating pattern, not an isolated incident.

I am arguing that listing a supercentenarian on the GRG or the OHB (my competitor, Louis Epstein) should be sufficient to qualify a supercentenarian for inclusion on a LIST, not as a standalone biography.

So, is there anything left to argue about? A careful reading shows that I am in agreement with you and even Itsmejudith, but not David in DC's negative commentary, which may not be enough to get him banned but should at least warrant a fairminded admonishment.

I also found it "COI" for David in DC to be lauding praise on John J Bulten on the Workshop page. Considering that David in DC and John J Bulten were heavily involved in a tag-team of AFD's in November-December (that resulted in some cases in poor decisions to delete to be made), David in DC should have recused himself from commenting on JJB's possible topic ban.

I don't see anyone on "my side" arguing for or against any proposed punishment for me, do you?

Ryoung122 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Been a pleasure

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all your thoughtful comments at my defense,. (And for your NPP activities and common sense on deletion of nonsense, of course!) Have a great time on this site until you're chased out, too! — Timneu22 · talk 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's the last edit. — Timneu22 · talk 16:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I will; you keep it up too. I'll help this place, and by extension the whole internet, try to suck less. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Valentines day! From USchick (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Your wish is granted - I just wanted to thank you for being so quick in adding the unreferenced tag to the article I just created on The Krazy Gang. Would you be a New Page patroller, by any chance? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of "T-Kernel Entry"

Hi, I tried to create an entry for "T-Kernel" a free real-time OS kernel, meant for embedded devices, i.e., devices with embedded computers such as FAX machines, laser printers, digital cameras, or automobiles these days, etc..

Anyway, to cut a long story short, the initial attempt was considered a spam article that tries to promote T-Kernel and was tagged for "speedy deletion" and is gone now in less than 24 hours. Maybe my justification or rationalization for the entry was not good enough.

Anyway, my point is that T-Kernel is being used in many applications along with its predecessor implementations based on ITRON specification.

Now, for real-time OS, Wikipedia has only these "entries" (taken from at the end of "VxWorks" entry, and I think it is very insufficient. It doesn't seem to have all the names in the "list of real-time operating systems." even.

List of entry names at the end of VxWorks:

BeRTOS · ChibiOS/RT · cocoOS · Contiki · DNIX · DSOS · eCos · Embedded Linux · ERIKA Enterprise · EROS · FreeRTOS · FunkOS · Integrity · Junos · LynxOS · MenuetOS · MQX · MERT · Nano-RK · Nucleus RTOS · OpenComRTOS · OS-9 · OSE · PikeOS · pSOS · Prex · QNX · RMX · RSX-11 · RT-11 · RTEMS · RTLinux · RT-Thread · SINTRAN III · Symbian · Talon DSP RTOS · THEOS · ThreadX · TNKernel · TPF · TRON · µC/OS-II · VRTX · VxWorks · Windows CE

I noticed that there is a sub-section titled "T-Kernel" in the entry for T-Engine, but T-Kernel, the software can run on any suitable hardware, and should have its own entry. I don't want to expand that section into a full blown explanation of what T-Kernel is: after all, the main entry is for T-Engine, the hardware. Growing the subsection will be akin to have a Windows or MS-DOS section for Intel x86 CPU chip hardware entry in wikipedia. It doesn't make a sense much since Windows (at least some versions) run on different CPUs (DEC Alpha, MIPS CPU, etc.).

Now, when I look at lynxOS, a real-time OS that has an entry in WikiPedia, to figure out what makes an article a spam only meant for promotion and what does not, I noticed there is a project to provide entries for computing terms, but when I visited the Project page and discussion page, I was at a loss where to start discussing. There was NO mention of real-time OS in the project page if I am not mistaken.

Probably starting a discussion in the computer project would be nice, but not sure which discussion page of which entry should be used.

Your suggestion where to start discussion how to approach enhancing the list of entries for real-time OS is appreciated.

TIA Zephyrusjp.

PS: I am not even sure if this "edit" is the right way to leave a message to you, but I have no other means to contact you, it seems.

PPS:

I am adding my sig Zephyrusjp (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Rural banks in Ghana

Nice idea (I too wish that pages like this could be deleted more easily), but it's far enough from policy that I don't feel comfortable doing it. I'm willing to bend the rules somewhat in one specific kind of case — if I delete an article that uses a non-free image with a rationale only for that page, I'll delete the image — but not really in any other. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Real life

Blade, I'm sending you a real Valentine in real life, I'm simply delivering it electronically. :-) That's for being so sweet, mature and rational (in real life). It's not necessary to have a girlfriend to be recognized as a decent human being and a true gentleman that you are! And I thought Valentine's Day was an appropriate time to do that. Also, when my personal life starts to suffer, that's when I know it's time to get off the computer and find some real people to interact with, but that's just me. :) It's been a pleasure running into you here! USchick (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)