Talk:Reliability theory of aging and longevity

Not a "theory"
If the article is kept at AfD, it needs to be moved as this is obviously not a theory but a hypothesis. I know most people confound the two, but a theory comes close to established fact (i.e., evolution, relativity, and such), whereas a hypothesis is more tentative. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Response: In peer reviewed literature this is called "The reliability theory..." (J Theor Biol. 2001 Dec 21;213(4):527-45. The reliability theory of aging and longevity). The status as a theory has been accepted by the professional community and not challenged in subsequent publications in the field. The theory status is justified.-- 17:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.107.132 (talk)
 * Yep, most people confound the two... --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio
This has been filed as a copyvio of https://www.soe.ucsc.edu/events/event/179. The original contributing user ( appears to be the author of the source work, and I have messaged this user to see if we can do anything to assist.

In the meantime I shall be rewriting the article at a new page to include the source material and other references in a fair manner. Should anyone else wish to contribute without wanting to get directly involved in the editing, please feel free to reply below or message me if you wish. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A few days have passed since you wrote this, . I've now gone ahead and removed all copyright violation (please see below) and made a short stub here. I've also removed the over-long Further reading list from the page; if you do decide to work on this you can access that through the article history; however I have also requested rev-deletion of the history, so it may not be available for long (it might be an idea to copy it if you think it might be useful to you). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have contacted the author (gavrilov@longevity-science.org), and have given him options regarding his source material, as he himself was the original contributor to this page. Once I have his response I will proceed to either re-write the text so as to not infringe on his copyright or restore the material after he has properly given permission per wikipedia policies found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials Mabidex (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps,, you mean that you will do one of those things if there is editor consensus that either of them is appropriate? I would suggest as an alternative that only that content which is supported by independent reliable sources be added to the page. This page appears to have started out as an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY Self-promotion ; that doesn't mean it needs to be kept that way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://longevity-science.org/SAGE-KE-03.pdf (dated 16 July 2003) or some similar source. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant to biology but not so much to Reliability engineering etc
Placing a category for every word in the article is not good idea WP:OVERCAT. Please remove Category:Systems theory and Category:Reliability engineering or provide better alternatives or extent article to cover systems topics, because this article is misplaced. Ushkin N (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, disagreed. While the first your sentence is indisputable, it is an insufficient rationale to remove these categories. On the contrary: this article is about a direct application of reliability theory (in an unusual area), hence the categories are directly relevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)