User talk:NealIRC

Neal, This is NOT a valid argument:

(Someone forgot to add

. What good is adding groups.yahoo.com/etc. if nothing happens when you click the link? I also removed the other external links..)

If the link is improperly formatted, fix it. Note that the WOP link only works if you are signed in. The GRG link works most of the time except when Dr. Coles is updating the tables. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE GRG LINKS.

Thank you.Ryoung122 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did fix it. www.grg.org is not a "reference" since it isn't used as a footnote. It would go under a category called external links. References are for footnotes [1] [2] etc. Anyways, I removed grg.org because most of the time, the specific tables are used (as it is for most articles). Grg.org itself is a main page. http://grg.org/Adams/CC.HTM would be a better link for James Henry Brett then grg.org, for external links. Neal 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC).

Neal, in regards to the below comment:

No, Bart you apparently added an 11th. Hmm - so it seems Bart supports the vandalism of top 11 instead of top 10. Neal 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

I disagree that Bart's editing was 'vandalism'. Vandalism would be adding someone like "I'm 13 and I'm the oldest! LOL!". What Bart is doing is editing based on a different point of view, not vandalism. We each need to learn to respect debate. Consensus is built through diplomacy, not declaring "I'm right" and then squashing all opposition. Even if 'top 10' is better in the long run, the way both you and CP went about dealing with the situation is not right. It's like the police beating a protester. Think about it.Ryoung122 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neal, don't get taken in by this argument:

+ Okay, I just read the article, and I saw it listed the top 10 women as 'oldest people' rather than 'oldest women.' It all of a sudden makes sense to me now. Now I know why all the conflict. Simple solution: why didn't anyone change the word people to women? And then we can discuss that. Neal 23:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

Is Edna Parker the world's oldest woman? Yes. But she's also the world's oldest person, which is MORE notable because it includes 100% of the population, not 51%. Think about it.Ryoung122 00:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User Canadian Jack, you have said more than your fair share, and you're wrong. Consider Emiliano Mercado Del Toro. He was the Guinness 'oldest living man' since Nov 19 2004. But in Dec. 2006 he also became 'world's oldest person.' Since he is eligible for both lists, we need at LEAST an 'overall list' and an 'oldest man' list. Now, if you wish, we could ALSO make a third list, 'oldest women.' But since that currently would be exactly the same as the 'oldest living' list, would that make sense?

The bottom line: either there's going to be two lists...oldest people, oldest men...or three: oldest people, oldest women, oldest men. But 'oldest people' and 'oldest men' aren't going anywhere.

Further, if you consider that the top-10 oldest living people list LINKS to a longer version that has both men and women on it, then we see that it would NOT be appropriate to re-name the 'oldest people' list to 'oldest women' when the long version includes men.Ryoung122 17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember Emiliano Mercado Del Toro: was it not an additional honor to be promoted from 'oldest man' to 'oldest person'?Ryoung122 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

--

Okay, so I suppose you would agree that if the top 10 oldest people are ever 5 women and 5 men equally, then there shouldn't be a top 10 men list (unless you have top 10 women also). But I guess that will likely not happen, at least not anytime soon. Neal 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

Neal, you see how a 'master' (myself), trained in the arts of 'supercentenarian theory' and the 'myth of longevity', was able to quickly identify ten likely signs that this case is fiction.

Of course, there are more. It is my hope and intention that you will learn these and other red-flag signs, as I learned them from my own 'masters' in the past. I suggest also reading up on Carl Sagan's 'baloney detector'. The next time someone comes at 'oldest people' with some bogus 140-year-old claim, don't just ask for documents; explain why the case appears to be completely made-up.

I suppose he also will buy the 'magic herbs' this 'wizard' is selling?

Note the obvious signs of the longevity myth: 'testimony' (testimonial fallacy, religious significance) 'even today' (an appeal to the past, because as modern record-keeping and education advance, stories like this become rarer) '140' (a rounded age...this is called 'age heaping') a male (though most true supercentenarians are female, the oldest age claims are disproportionately male, suggesting a patriarchal reason) herbal medicine (appeal to non-scientific healing, 'witchcraft' or medicine-man approach) five wives (polygamy) and scores of children (again, patriarchal) 'God' (use of religion) oral tradition, not written record (age based on 'festivals') no accurate birthdate money a motivating factor ('I charge them handsomeley to sustain myself') Ok, I identified ten 'red flags' that suggest that this is not just a false longevity claim, but even more so, a longevity myth...that is, based on primarily mythological reasons.Ryoung122 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, when a case is a 'longevity claim' (about 113-129 years old), the case 'mimics' reality in some way, but often has a distorted story (such as a 58-year age gap). But even further out, 'longevity myths' rely on religious belief to convince people that they're true.Ryoung122 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this 'category' is to 'categorize' articles that are similar in kind. Thus I find it counterproductive that this category is now nominated for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers

I also find it odd that the nominator suggests that this category is 'good enough for an article' but not a category? Sorry, I don't see 'categories' as superior to articles...they are merely tools of organization. The articles are more important. However, linking is a key to Wikipedia's success; delinking is simply turning the clock back.Ryoung122 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary at BHG's page. I was puzzled by this too. See: . (And now the hyphens are gone??) Katr67 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, okay. Thanks! And let me just test something, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 tildes. ~ ~~ Neal (talk) Neal (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

I've been looking through the PRODs, and I think we need to find some better way of handling this instead of fighting back and forth, article by article, with erratic results. May I make a suggestion--merge into articles for the record holders of each country, or survivors of each major war (oldest only, anything lesser can go in a list) , and accept that there will be articles for each world record-holder. Hows that for a compromise? We badly need one--I dont want to spend my time on this, and i think WP notability decisions should start moving into some degree of consistency. I will absolutely support all proposed merges, with redirects for the names. I've left the same comment for BHG.DGG (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no need to compromise with me. Neal (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a message with User:BrownHairedGirl. Once the discussion develops, I'll let you know what talk page it's going to be focused on. Cheers, CP 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

She replied on User Talk:BrownHairedGirl. The gist of it is that more reliable sources are needed to establish the notability. Certainly if she was the World's Oldest there should be a fair number to provide her with. I suggest collecting enough references, on or offline, to establish the notability for all relevant policies and then present her the evidence. I suggest, however, not spamming her talk page with links, but rather collecting them in a subpage of your user page and just presenting her with a link to that page. If you'd like, you use User:Canadian Paul/Extras if for whatever reason you'd prefer not to create a sub-page. Cheers, CP 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I just brought the issue up because when the person who works for Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group, a.k.a. the banned Robert Young, when he saw the Marie Brémont article being forwarded, he instantly phoned me on my cell. Well, if he wants to follow the instructions as follows he'll let me know in real time. Neal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Wait... he lives in Georgia and you live in Illinois... and he has your cell??? Cheers, CP 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, you may wish to review WP:MEAT and just ensure that your aren't acting as one and (importantly) are not seen by the overall community as acting as one. Shot info (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't think I fit the definition, because: Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda. I did not "begin" Wikipedia from that aspect. Had my account a little over a year now. Neal (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

I'm not suggesting that you are one, I'm just letting you know that sometimes the Community can get itself worked up over something (anything...) and editors can avoid that by keeping their noses clear (so to speak). Shot info (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also a bad idea to be act on behalf of a blocked user. That it in itself can earn a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What can happen, and what should happen, are always 2 different things in my book. Neal (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Mmm. I don't have enough politics going on in my Wikipedia life. Neal (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi! Since the AfD discussion on Annie Jennings, where you voted "keep", has closed with a consensus to keep the article, I trust you will make some effort to add Reliable Sources to it? It has been unreferenced since creation. --Stormie (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad news. There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources on the Internet. Just did a Google search in quotes along with birth and death year to confirm. The off-line evidence would be, the Romanian authorities, or simply her retirement home, has records of her moving in at age 82, spanning a total 33 years, making her possibly the 2nd longest duration anyone has lived in a retirement home. I will also ask other people for sources. Neal 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

I believe there are several AfDs you may be interested in, namely: Betsy Baker, Adelina Domingues, Grace Clawson, James Henry Brett Jr., and several others... ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links I read appear to be saying that this has been verified. Georgia guy (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say, that the links are not reliable information. I can list other similar cases, such as the Chinese newspapers saying Du Pingua was accepted by Guinness at 120, which never happened, but such cases won't help this particular case.

The Gerontology Research Group has a Spain correspondent. Miguel Quesada. I got word on the phone he did not accept it. However, I haven't checked his post with World's Oldest People group since I got removed from it. And, Miguel Quesada is the leading authority on Spain. He uses his rational standards - and I currently don't have up to date information on the process of this specific case with Guinness and the like.

I once prematurely added the Ellen Dart case before it was accepted, which was reverted, until the case was finally accepted. And then I'm not 1 to say or think whether this case will pass or not. Neal (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC).

Nice work about Ruby Muhammad on her discussion page. I agree with you 100 percent. I have already found 2 sites saying she was born in 1906 not 1897. I hope to hear from you. Plyjacks (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I took Alan's comment "I support the inclusion of knowledge" as supporting retention. Let us leave it to Alan to decide. Note this is not a vote, but an attempt at consensus. The current state is therefore three editors supporting deletion and none supporting retention. It has a long time to run. --Bduke (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, if he moved his paragraph to the section that supports, I'd have no problem with it. Just that, the rest of them used a simple bold remove standard and such. Neal (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Neal. I happened to read through the recent threads there and at Carcharoth's page last night. I have nothing to add at this stage except to say that I'd be surprised if an unblock request was considered favourably at this time. I will watch any developments closely. —Moondyne click! 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Neal-March102008.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

-Wonderful. Neal (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

See Talk:USA PATRIOT Act. Hopefully I've shed some light on what part of the Patriot Act deals with customer identification when setting up a new bank account. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were being used as an "in universe" support, you'd have a point.

But it isn't being used that way, nor is it intended to be. It's an illustration of how the Batsuit was depicted across the shows Timm handled, showing the relative air dates (real world context). And the best I can tell, Ace Class Shadow deliberately separated the BB version since it is a different character, but left the dates to say "Yes, this was the version used in original storied between the end of The New Batman Adventures and Justice League."

- J Greb (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right: I have just removed the other example (oh, I see you have seen it!). Actually, the basketball player said he *did not* want to do so-and-so and then die, only to die in exactly that way, while Mark Twain (if the story is correct) more or less predicted the time of his death. Nonetheless, you are right about the Maravich example. In general, I prefer a small number of very significant and revealing examples, than a larger number of less meaningful, or arguably incorrect, examples. Anyway, thanks for the very civil remarks, and happy editing! Goochelaar (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ryoung122.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bart Versieck.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Plyjacks.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Neal! You tagged the images as {{GFDL}}, but also stated that you got them from GRG's site. Did you manage to obtain a release for those images to upload them under the GFDL? Thanks, east.718 at 01:37, March 27, 2008

Just ask the copyright holder nicely to release the image under the GFDL, and if they do, forward your correspondence with them to [email protected]. Otherwise, uploading them as GFDL is a bad move. east.718 at 20:15, March 27, 2008

Everything is copyrighted unless it is explicitly stated that the work is in the public domain (don't confuse this with being publicly available). east.718 at 20:21, March 27, 2008

You said that you got Image:Plyjacks.jpg from a MySpace, so a good start would be to message that person. Unfortunately, I doubt GRG holds the copyright to the images that they're using, so you're probably out of luck there. east.718 at 20:29, March 27, 2008

Neal, a discussion has been started on Commons here. You might care to comment. Three of your images that were on the Oldest People Project page are tagged in a way that could allow speedy deletion. The collage is very questionable. Do you know that every single on of the photographs in the collage is under a free license or public domain and thus appropriate for Commons? If the individual images are not free, then the collage itself is not. --Bduke (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The admin actually sent me a thingy on my talk, where I also got an e-mail that my talk was updated. Neal (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're expecting me to do...? Mentality (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That is two comments of mine that have been appreciated for their humour, just today! I think I shall log off now, whilst I am ahead... Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So, Neal, please, finally tell me what exactly you meant by this remark of yours at my talkpage, will you?

Re: sentence 2. Mk then. Neal (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by this? Extremely sexy (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Still no explanation though, you great one. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, his sentence 2 was "An indefinite block is in place, but at this juncture, over three months after the events that took place back in November 2007, it is my opinion that, given that this was the first substantial block, any contrite unblock request from Robert for a second chance, reviewed by an independent admin (i.e. not one of those involved at the time - mostly Maxim, BrownHairedGirl, or me, and not one that has had dealings with him before, i.e. CP), would succeed."

So all I said was "Mk then." See, I already knew the difference between block and ban. But everyone says Ryoung122 is banned and not blocked, even though I know he is blocked and not banned. Carcharoth just wanted to make that clarification. Neal (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

Yes, but what is this "Mk", hello? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, think of it as "Mmmmm kay." Or okay. ;) Neal (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

You are so funny. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your Serge Voronoff answer from the reference desk. I think you might want to assume good faith. The claim that someone has grafted monkey's testicles to a human is incredible enough that one might be forgiven for double checking that the article had not been hacked. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to direct people to the article without biting them. Not biting people was really the point of my post. If you're so tired that you cannot answer without biting, you should give yourself a break. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you reverted the deletion. Go and read WP:BITE. Tell me whether "Is it because you're lazy? Or just trolling?" is in any way appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

--Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The closing Bureaucrat comments as you stated for this RFA [[here where is their words? i cant seem to find it. Can you help me out? Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Neal, I recently deleted comments you made at User talk:Mentality, where you discussed some rather personal information about another user. I just wanted to make sure that you realize how important it is to respect the privacy of others, especially concerning issues as delicate as those that you mentioned. There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding these comments, if you wish to address them personally. Grsz11 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I realized I gave 2 of the person's e-mail address in his talk, before reading a policy/guideline page that giving out someone's e-mail is considered to be personal information. It doesn't mention anything about what the other user's end can do or say about that. As per stalking, well, maybe. But I've just known this guy for over a year before coming to Wikipedia. Neal (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

Neal. it disturbs me that you do not seem to realise just how much out of line were your comments on User talk:Mentality. It does not matter how long you claim to have known Robert Young, those comments were just not acceptable on wikipedia. --Bduke (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It clearly says on Mentality's page he is someone that wants to look out on helping them. Neal (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Agreed, this is way out of line - we have indef blocked for less in the past. Orderinchaos 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"As per stalking, well, maybe." Would you care to explain that comment Neal? —Moondyne click! 05:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your definition of stalking? Neal (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

How long is a piece of string? Have you or have you not been stalking a blocked user? You don't have to answer that because its a rhetorical question: you obviously have been. My concern is knowing whether you understand the seriousness of posting personal details (particularly in the manner you did) and making certain that you understand that it will not be tolerated. As stated above, people have been indef blocked for less and the single mitigating thing in your favour here is that 2 weeks have passed before it was discussed with you. —Moondyne click! 14:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have to argue that it is an objective truth that people's sexual orientation is considered to be private/confidential information, and not something subjective based upon perspectives. I agree, that I violated a guideline or policy about posting his e-mails addresses, and I apologize for that. Why do I say 'maybe' stalking? Because to uninvolved Wikipedians, they could assume we have no relation whatsoever. For example, several months ago, Robert phones me at around 3 a.m. for over an hour-long conversation regarding Wikipedia: the policies, the admins, etc., on a school night. I know what city he's from, he knows what city I'm from, I know what school he goes to, a bit about his personal life, etc. Clearly if I found out his address that could be stalking, but I don't know posting someone's sexual orientation is. Neal (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

Bringing offwiki stuff onwiki is pretty much *always* considered revealing or outing of personal information, from the point of view of Wikipedia policy. There's really no way to argue it. In past cases I've seen it argued "It's on a website or the person has allegedly disclosed themselves" - that is not a defence, if the person has not disclosed it here then we have no business discussing it or raising it here. The philosophy here to some extent is "we don't care who you are as long as you abide by policy and edit encyclopaedically, or aim to do so." Especially in the manner in which it was raised, it would appear that it was intended to harass or humiliate the target and served no purpose beyond that. Be warned that if you do it again, you will be blocked. As Moondyne said, you only escaped this one because of elapsed time since the actions taken. Orderinchaos 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That I understand. Understood. This is not my argument, however, in the sense that you did not touch on my question. If everything you said was true, suppose for example, I found out Ryoung122's favorite color on another website of his - and I presented that to Wikipedia. By your explanation, "Bringing offwiki stuff onwiki is pretty much *always* considered revealing or outing of personal information." Obviously, we would need to draw a line on what's considered to be grounds for that such policy. I would argue that presenting that off-wiki information is not the case, but I haven't read it yet or seen it.

Re: "it would appear that it was intended to harass or humiliate the target and served no purpose beyond that." Apparently, I'm very sympathetic to feelings like that. User:Mentality is someone I know from November 2004, and I simply wanted someone to help support Ryoung122 on his opening-up case. I personally feel this is not something anyone should feel ashamed about. That is simply my opinion. Neal (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

(undent) Did Ryoung ask you to help him "opening-up"? What part of mind your own business don't you understand? Grsz11 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. N/A - where did you hear that? Neal (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

"I simply wanted someone to help support Ryoung122 on his opening-up case." This is you implying he wants help. Grsz11 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Initially, I would have no idea if he wanted help. I would still offer it, though. I personally read some of his blogs and felt sympathetic. Neal (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

I am still very disturbed that you do seem to understand that what you did is very wrong and you do not seem to be learning. You say "I don't know posting someone's sexual orientation is (stalking)". Be well assured that this is completely out of line. You still say you will offer help. We are writing an encyclopedia. We are not a social site. We help each other to write the encyclopedia better. That is all. Read the WP:ANI discussion again and see what I reported Robert saying about you. Leave him alone. Mind your own business. You have just made a number of administrators lose all patience with you. I strongly suggest that you just shut up before you dig yourself even deeper into a hole. --Bduke (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 1 month from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Your responses above are inadequate and can only be described as incredibly immature or those of a troll intent on disruption. Either way you have no business contributing here while you have this mindset. What you did was extremely serious and I frankly don't believe you when you say you were only trying to help. I am blocking you pending a clear statement from you that you agree to abide by our policies. I have no objection with a reviewing admin lifting this block once they are happy with the response. —Moondyne click! 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Newsletter/Archives/1

Hello, this message is being sent to inform you that a proposal to un-merge all Pokemon articles has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokemon#Pokemon and their rightful place. As a member of WikiProject Pokemon, your input would be much appreciated. GlassCobra 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on the Project's talk page, we will be updating WikiProject Pokémon's list of participants. To do this, all users previously listed as "Active" have been moved to the "Inactive" list; after this change anyone may add/re-add their name to the "Active" participants list. As your name was one of those on the Active members list, I am notifying you in case your active interest remains. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)