User talk:Longevitydude

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding AfD Discussions

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

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

Proposed deletion of James Sisnett

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

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

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

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

July 2010

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

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

Longevity Myths

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, they are longevity myths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katie McMenamin

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

Take a look here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Word of Counsel

Dude:

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

You're doing it again. Please take a few breaths. I know you're frustrated. Your zeal is outpacing your judgment right now. Your current approach is undermining your substantive arguments in the current cases. You also risk doing damage to your reputation as an editor in the future. That can be avoided.

By hook or by crook, RY has gotten the deadline for evidence extended into 2011. Walk away until you can make (and explain) editorial judgments without succumbing to provocation. I'm confident you'll get the serenity you need to stay engaged for the long-term before the deadline for submitting evidence in this case passes.

Watch some football, or any other sport where fouls are called. Notice how often the foul gets called on the guy who responds rather than the guy who initiates. It ain't fair, but it's true. (BTW, I'm not saying you're the only one being provoked. You do some provoking yourself. But I'll bet that, at least some of the time, the provocation you feel is unintended. And I'm sure that, at least some of the time, you mean no provocation.

We may disagree, but we need not be foes. The only true markers of adulthood are 1) the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and 2) the inclination to take matters seriously without taking oneself seriously. By these standards, the "leaders" of the WOP WikiProject/GRG Yahoo! group do a pretty poor job of demonstrating adulthood, at least here on-wiki. Take a break, then come back refreshed and have at it.

Your loyal sparring partner and wikifriend,

David in DC (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're going to be slapped down for editing in someone else's eveidence section on the arbitration page. That rule is taken VERY seriously. Please do yourself a favor and either delete the edit entirely or move it to your section of the page. Like I've said before, occasionally your zeal outpaces your judgment. This one's a clear, indisputable no-no. Move it yourself, so you don't undermine your substance with your style, and you don't incur thoroughly unnecessary criticism.

Also, Happy/Merry [insert appropriate holiday here]. David in DC (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, BTW there was this one time where Timneu22 edited on my section, but I removed his edit.Longevitydude (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember, two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights do make an airplane. David in DC (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, and remember, three rights make a left. Longevitydude (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullets

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

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

Ok then

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

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

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

• I sounds like your the one whining, and I don't nominate articles for deletion so don't expect me to vote out of spite, and don't threaten us, we werent warned for incivility, please remember that next time you wanna attack other users. Longevitydude (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't remember anything you tell me, because it's just not that important. Whining [2], [3], [4], [5], ad nauseum. It's great that you have your little hobby about old people, it really is, but you never could step back to say why this guy needs an article rather than just to be included on some list somewhere. — Timneu22 · talk 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• your the last person who should be talking about anyone whining after your recent tantrums, this dude stands out because hes a male supercentenarian whose the oldest verified man in the continent of europe, just because the grg doesn't update stuff everyday doesn't change the fact that they validated him. Longevitydude (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

LD, I agree with you on the comment you left on my talk page. Timneu22, you are arrogant, self-centered, and obnoxious, and none of us wish to waste our time on you. Good day. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, take a look at this guy's behaviour again. He is trying to make you feel bad because he thinks he is superior to you. Don't believe it; he's only looking for attention, to get a rise out of you. Ignore him if you feel it appropriate. Brendan (talk, contribs) 08:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity articles COI

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.

There's another discussion about you at ANI. — Timneu22 · talk 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

Please participate in a discussion about users with conflicts of interest editing the topic of longevity. Your name has been mentioned here. JJB 20:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JJB 23:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

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) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are solicited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop#Accept stipulations. JJB 20:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in providing evidence for this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to the Longevity Evidence page

With this edit, you responded to someone else's accusations in their evidence section. The guidelines at the top of the evidence page include the following: "If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section." As such, you should refactor your response by creating your own evidence section and putting your responses & evidence exclusively in that section - if you fail to do so, I will ask a clerk to refactor it for you. 74.101.118.239 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

AFDs

Your comments suggest you have other outcomes in mind than those listed at WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. If so you should comment at that link. JJB 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

JJB: It's ridiculous for you to suggest that you can describe your proposed policies wherever you like but that others must comment elsewhere. Please behave. → Brendan 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Inform me of future AfDs

Can you do me a favour?

Please inform me of any supercentenarian-related AfDs that come in the future. JJB has been launching an all-out attack on reliably sourced articles, such as Yukichi Chuganji. He needs to be stopped. Brendan (talk, contribs) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

in a previous section on my talk, theres a link to the site that keeps track of all the afds. Longevitydude (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find it. Where? Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. Don't be sorry, i wouldnt expect you to rely on a link JJB posted, but if you click on this, just scroll up a little bit and youll find the list of afds.

Okay, got it. Thanks. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This one's slightly more direct. Its existence is why the "cabal" talk has pissed me off almost as much as RY's accusations of homophobia. There ain't nothing going on in secret. David in DC (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Elsa Moberg

Elsa Moberg
Born	(1889-06-30)June 30, 1889
Died	November 20, 2001 (aged 112 years, 143 days)
Known for	Longevity (Longest-lived, native Swede)

Elsa Moberg (June 30, 1889, Lysekil – November 20 or 27, 2001) was a Swedish supercentenarian who was the oldest Swede on record (age 112 years 143 (or 150) days at her death), until Astrid Zachrison surpassed that age in October 2007.

Biography

Elsa Moberg was born on June 30, 1889 as one of 14 brothers and sisters in Lysekil, an urban area and the seat of Lysekil Municipality in Västra Götaland County, Sweden. At the age of 47, she began her married life with Ernst in a childless marriage that lasted 32 years until Ernst death in 1968. In March 1999 when Moberg was 109, she became Sweden's oldest person after the death of Hulda Johansson. Moberg died on November 20, 2001 in Stockholm at the age of 112 years and 143 days, an event that resulted in Astrid Zachrison becoming the oldest person in Sweden. At the time of Moberg's death, Xinhua News Agency, the official press agency of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), noted that Sweden had one of the highest longevity rates in the world, with an average lifespan is over 80. In 2002, Moberg's longevity ranked her as the tenth oldest person who ever lived.

See also

• Oldest people
• National longevity recordholders

External links

• http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=361&a=346256 (in Swedish)
• http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=701199 (in Swedish)
• http://sydsvenskan.se/familj/fodelsedag/article270884.ece (in Swedish)

{{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. --> | NAME = Moberg, Elsa | ALTERNATIVE NAMES = | SHORT DESCRIPTION = Swedish supercentenarian | DATE OF BIRTH = June 30, 1889 | PLACE OF BIRTH =Lysekil Municipality | DATE OF DEATH = November 20, 2001 | PLACE OF DEATH = Stockholm }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Moberg, Elsa}} Category:1889 births Category:2001 deaths Category:People from Lysekil Municipality Category:Swedish supercentenarians

it:Supercentenari nordici#Elsa Moberg fi:Elsa Moberg sv:Elsa Moberg

HAPPY 18TH BIRTHDAY

TODAY IS ONE OF THE BEST DAYS OF MY LIFE, YEAH AMADEUS AMADEUS OH AMADEUS, YEAH YEAH AMADEUS AMADEUS OH YEAH ROCK ME AMADEUS ... IM GONNA HAVE THAT SONG IN MY HEAD FOR A WHILE, SO PLEASE DONT BEGRUDGE MY ANY HAPPINESS ON THIS EXITING DAY. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Happy Birthday, Dude. You know what I'd be likely to say about your recent edits here and at the AfD:

• Zeal outweighs judgment.
• Take a breath.
• Blah, Blah, Blah.
• That "wah-wah" sound the adults make in Charlie Brown cartoons.

But it's your birthday, and a milestone one at that. So to hell with all the other stuff for the moment. I wish you good fortune, health, and happiness.

Best,

David in DC (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL, thank you, I was just trying to be funny in those recent edits to be honest.

Happy birthday Aaron! I forgot that we share the same birthday. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity

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)

Arbitration enforcement

This is to let you know that I have asked for the Wikipedia: Arbitration Enforcement case relating to User: NickOrnstein to be extended to cover off-wiki canvassing through the 110 Club internet forum. Please comment there. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan Goossenaerts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan Goossenaerts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You know very well that canvassing an AFD discussion off-wiki is completely unacceptable. Care to explain yourself? Canadian Paul 04:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy CP, no need for this meanness, we should keep it peaceful. I hope you enjoyed your weekend. Longevitydude (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being mean, I'm being direct. I am asking you to take responsibility for something you did that you clearly knew was unacceptable and not do it again. If you want to maintain the community's trust, you must take responsibility when you violate it. Everyone can occasionally act in the heat of the moment or without thinking, even when they know the rules, but acknowledging that it was a mistake (and taking extra efforts to avoid making it again) is the only way to move on. Canadian Paul 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you like the kitten I gave you on your talk page? Longevitydude (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I was really hoping that you would take this more seriously and we could just move on. Per a previous arbitration enforcement decision, standard discretionary sanctions apply to off-Wiki canvassing in any form. Since you have shown no willingness to admit to and correct your behavior, and I have no evidence that you will not continue to canvass off-wiki for deletion discussions, I will be preparing a report for Arbitration Enforcement on this matter. Canadian Paul 15:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when is it your business what I inform other members of the GRG about an afd of one of the people they follow, a supercentenarian and/or titleholder? Good job editing your username BTW(by the way). Longevitydude (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have logged the request for Arbitration Enforcement here. You may respond to this issue there from now on. Canadian Paul 04:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Im disappointed, I thought we were getting somewhere away from conflict, obviously you dont like that kitten I posted on your talk page, so im getting rid of it, I dont have time for your toys, me and my cousin dont have tickets to wrestlemania. Longevitydude (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I wasn't known for acting serious or mature back in the day, so I just wanted to apologize for any trouble I caused wikipedia and for any rules I had violated back in the day. I hope we can all move on and concentrate on doing good by putting personal differences aside. Longevitydude (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kate Poppy Byrne

Mary Byrne
Born	Mary Kate Byrne (1904-08-14)14 August 1904 Maganey, County Kildare, Ireland
Died	31 December 2012(2012-12-31) (aged 108) Maganey, County Kildare, Ireland
Cause of death	Natural causes
Resting place	Maganey, County Kildare, Ireland
Nationality	Irish
Other names	Poppy Byrne
Known for	Oldest citizen of Ireland

Mary Kate "Poppy" Byrne (14 August 1904 – 31 December 2012) was an Irish centenarian. At the time of her death, she was the oldest citizen of Ireland at the age of 108.

Biography

Birth

Born in Ireland, Byrne was raised in Maganey, County Kildare.

Personal life

In 2011, Byrne stated that she kept her mind active by reading a newspaper every day and had remained in good health, despite a daily full breakfast. In the same year, she was honored by the office of President of Ireland Michael D. Higgins as the country's oldest citizen. Byrne was often visited by members of her family, including sons, grandchildren, and great grandchildren among them, along with friends who called in frequently. She succeeded another Laois woman, Anastasia Kelly, as Ireland's official oldest person, as recognised by the President's office.

Death

Byrne died on 31 December 2012 of natural causes. At the time of her death, she was 108 years of age. She was buried in her home village of Maganey in County Kildare following funeral mass at St Abban’s Church in Killeen on 3 January 2013. Married to William, who died before her, she came from County Laois. Her son Joe and daughter Lilly also died before her, while two other sons, Liam and Michael, outlived her, along with various grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Three generations of her family would visit her every day before she died.

See also

• Lists of centenarians

External links

• Death notice

{{DEFAULTSORT:Byrne, Mary}} Category:1904 births Category:2012 deaths Category:Irish centenarians

Clarification motion

A case (Longevity) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

John Roseberry

Please take a look at the updated sources in the article. If you believe that it is now noteworthy, you can reconsider your vote here. [6] CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the link, but I'd recommend posting it at the AFD if you haven't all ready done so. Longevitydude (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting to keep my article "Brian Wiprud." You clearly understand authors and books. Would you mind looking at another article I did, Randall Hicks. The same person who initially marked it for deletion for similar reasons, which I don't feel is appropriate, did the same with the "Brian Wiprud" article. Thanks. From Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to weigh in on the Randall Hicks article. Gelo962 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Gelo962

Nomination of James Sisnett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James Sisnett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sisnett until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)