User talk:Sjayo

September 2009
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Sjayo. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article S. Jay Olshansky‎‎, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Biography vs. autobiography
This is an encyclopedia, not your Linkedin or Grindr profile. We are looking for a biography not an autobiography. Linking to your website is ok for verifying facts but to determine notability we are looking to see if if other publications have taken notice of you and have written biographical material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I second what Richard has posted above. You do not own an article on WP, even if it is about yourself. Your interference is disruptive and if you continue in this way, you risk being blocked from editing. If there are inaccuracies in the article, please post a comment on the talk page pointing out the inaccuracy and linking to a reliable source that supports the statement. "I am John Doe and I approve of this statement" really has no weight here. Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You can help your profile by adding dates to the events so that they can be listed in chronological order. Or you can point us to a profile written by a third party that we can use as a source to show that you have been noticed by the media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Something else that would help: your work has been highly cited. To mention this in the article, we need a good source. It would be helpful if you would set up a profile either on Google Scholar or on ResearcherID (or both). Only takes half an hour... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I went to google scholar and updated my list of publications, and then made it public. As for media sources, you need only go to my website and click on any of the links provided on the media page -- there you can view the actual stories that appeared either in print or on TV. The choice of research grants that someone decided to put on my page is rather bizarre, and somehow they forgot to include mention of the MacArthur Foundation (my most important linkage for the last 7 years). Why anyone would decide to remove my service as a board member of the American Federation for Aging Research is unclear -- this is clearly important. There is also no mention of my co-creation of facemyage.com, or my linkages to a broad range of industries in financial services and insurance. It is unclear what "proof" is needed -- all one needs to do is go the website of any of these organizations and look up the list of keynote or invited speakers.

Wikipedia notability vs. highly cited
The problem is that you are highly cited but no one is interviewing you about biographical details. It is those biographical interviews that impart someone with "Wikipedia notability". Otherwise we are just regurgitating your CV or your media blurbs. Your media blurb is a list of titles and awards without any dates associated with them so there is no way to organize them in chronological order. It looks like editors have stripped out accomplishments that have no dates associated with them. Has anyone interviewed you about you instead of your work? That is what distinguishes a highly cited professor from a notable one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard, this time I disagree: many citations demonstrate notability according to WP:ACADEMIC (#1) and non-independent sources may be used to source neutral info (like positions and such). Scientists are notable for their work, so we don't need many biographical details (the basics can usually be found in a CV or personal website: birth year, place of birth, stuff like that). We can include a list of, say, the 5 most cited works. A list of books, if not too extensive, is fine, too. Grants, while important, are basically routine (without grants no research and no notability, so grants are kind of implied). So we can usually get to a reasonable bio for an academic, even without too many biographical sources. And if there are awards, there often are sources connected to that that help us source things like what the main focus of interest of a person is or what his most important contributions are. I'm travelling and can't do much here right now, hope this helps. Perhaps can offer some assistance. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with . In any profession, it is not the routine facts of somebody's life that makes them notable, but the work they do. In many fields, it's difficult to specify just what kit is that amounts to notability--in the scientific world it is quite specific. almost the only way one can become notable as a researcher is by influencing the field, and the standard way one determines that is by citations. (the other specifications in WP:PROF are mainly   convenient measures fundamentally dependent on such citations.  The article should ideally give the basic biographic facts, and then mainly talk about the work. For the basic facts, the official bio on university sites are reliable, even if not independent. For the work, one gives the most important articles & if there  possible,  additional reliable information. But theres no actual need for an independent secondary source in the usual sense.
 * As an analogy, what makes an athlete notable is their athletic accomplishments. If nobody every interviews a Olympic athlete, they're just as notable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes an average professor (or athlete) from a notable one? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, especially given that you think a third party interview about notoriety is what gives someone notoriety. I am invited to give about 6-10 keynote speeches each year to scientists and lay populations from all over the world, from a broad range of industries. On top of that, I have another 6-8 invited talks each year to scientific conferences. All of these keynote invitations and invited talks occur for a reason -- because I am well known in my field for my position on human aging and longevity. I've been invited to speak in front of CEOs of all major insurance companies; I've spoken at the Institute of Medicine; I've advised the U.S. Social Security Administration, the United Nations, the government of Switzerland, the Government of the UK; and I've published in all major scientific and medical journals -- often as the lead or senior author. The story in Science in 1990 about my lead article in the journal in that year is what set my career in motion, and there is a story in that issue about how my research brought the entire field of gerontology of age. My colleague and I essentially created the newly burgeoning field of Biodemograpy in 1992 with funding from the Social Security Administration; and Science Magazine even included me on their list of scientists who have "scientist trading cards". Science published a story about this, and me. How many scientists can claim to have created a new field of study? It's unclear what criteria you use or need, but if this doesn't meet them, I don't know what will -- and I've only given you a small sample of my body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.237.42 (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"signing" in wikipedia
What "signing" means in Wikipedia is that you type four tildas at the end of a comment you make, like this: ~ which the Wikipedia software turns into a date stamp and a link to your username and user Talk page. Please do that - it is as basic as "please" and "thank you" here. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Real world identity here in WP
In general in Wikipedia, it doesn't matter who you are. It matters what you do - how well you write, how good your sources are, how well you understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines that govern this place (which boil down to: a) talk to other people; b) write in a neutral way about important stuff; c) provide really good citations for the content you add).

For some editors, it is important that their Wikipedia identity is continuous with their real world identity. There are good things and bad things about that - see Username_policy for some of them. We generally assume good faith when people say "I am X" but per the Essjay thing folks hold a bit of skepticism.

But it really doesn't matter here, who you are. It drives people crazy, but you don't get extra "authority" for being accomplished in the real world. What creates authority here is a record of making great contributions, which takes time to establish.

The WP:EXPERT essay explains all this pretty well. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COI
You should not be editing the page about you per WP:COI Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)