Thread:Richard Monkey/@comment-26890527-20170402164945/@comment-258494-20170404182409

Richard Monkey wrote:

Pluto2 wrote:

Ryoung122 wrote:

Richard Monkey wrote: Thank you Robert. Can I also apologise for the rant earlier. I don't know what came over me. It was very childish and I wasn't acting like someone my age should. Thanks, Richard.

A block is not always for punishment...sometimes it is a "time out" to give people a chance to discuss an issue (especially when it is a short block such as for "3 days"). I felt that the Gerontology Wiki would be going in the wrong direction if we add 1907? births to the list of supercentenarians born in 1907. Without age validation, there's no point in keeping track...it would be like including drug cheats with clean athletes. We need to separate cases into at least four, possibly five, levels:

--validated

--pending

--unvalidated (but 110-114 with a good chance of future validation)

--longevity claims (115+, not a good chance of future validation)

--longevity myths (130+, no chance of future validation)

The problem is that, sometimes, a case doesn't fit well within the above schematic. A case can still be a longevity myth at a younger age: remember the Brazilian man claiming to be "114" as he sold longevity potions? His claim becomes a myth by definition of the type of case it is.

We have had "swamis" claim incorrect ages many times...even the Maharasha Mahesh Yogi: was he born in 1911, as he claimed? Other sources suggested 1917 or 1918, with 1918 being the strongest.

The issue here is that high age confers "status notability" to those who are telling people that, if you listen to them, you will live longer. By definition, there is a conflict of interest here: a motivation to inflate one's age. It's important to put cases like this in a separate category. How about this: when you return, you can start making "list of ?cases" by year of alleged birth. Don't forget that this won't be one or two cases...there could be literally hundreds, eventually thousands. So, if you develop "list of longevity claims and myths by year of alleged year of birth", you can start by combining the ages into one file but splitting it over time as it gets too large.

I also made it clear that I'm not operating as a normal member but as the Chief Bureaucrat, appointed by the Gerontology Wiki founder. I'm like a "referee", a "chair umpire". If I overrule the edit of someone else, they should take it to the talk page and not undo my edits. If I'm doing something that's a clear OOPS/mistake, that's one thing. But an UNDO, by definition, is already an administrative decision. In tennis, Roger Federer, as great as he is, doesn't get to overrule the umpire.

The Wikia rules state that one can found (or operate) a Wiki according to the rules for that particular Wiki.

The Gerontology Wiki is designed to be an encyclopedia. Quality control is important. We have seen quite a bit of problems with vandalism lately, and the last thing we need is another edit war.

So, we'll welcome you back tomorrow, with the understanding that you should not be undoing my "UNDO" edits. You should take the issue to the talk page to discuss the issue.

Thank you for your understanding.Ryoung122 (talk) 13:53, April 3, 2017 (UTC) There's one problem with that level setup: we need another level between unvalidated and longevity claims. There are cases like Marie Laure du-Serre-Telmon that are claims to 115+, but are likely to be validated. I don't think Telmon is likely to be validated until we have some more info on her between 1907 (the year she divorced) and 1977 (the year she is presumed to have died).

An exception to the rule doesn't disprove the rule. Over 98% of claims to 115+ are never validated.Ryoung122 (talk) 18:24, April 4, 2017 (UTC)