User talk:Imaglang/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sorry

We would just like to appologise for any unrest we caused to you. We only followed given instructions and we have no information why you were pointed out as a person to message our final post to.

We are not allowed to keep posting any further comments about our final post and our report, no matter of the intence of the comments it caused and it will cause in future here on Wikipedia. Therefore, we will not be able to give you any further information.

We will point out that no further messages will follow, no matter of your future comments and critics towards us. Actually, critics are highly welcomed by our side.

We appologise again.

I_sterbinski

Thank you. Apologies accepted! --Neigel von Teighen 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed

Could you please help?

I have been a positively contributing editor of the polygamy article since the end of last year, with numerous amounts of knowledge on the subject. However, I have subsequently been attacked by POV anti-polygamists who have undermined the article with their POV agenda and who now consistently prevent me from editing anything in it since the end of April. I have produced volumes of evidence of the abuse in the TALK pages, which anti-polygamists have even attempted to hide by "archiving."

On July 18, 2005, I made an AMA Request for Assistance - An Advocate Needed, requesting AMA help from Kmweber. They quickly agreed to help, but needed a few days due to a new real world job. As of this writing, I have yet to ever hear from them again (which is starting to concern me at this point). That's why I am now seeking your help, if you are willing. (As you can see, I am a patient person, but recent events of abuse have given me need to speed up the process, if possible.)

Recently, in the ongoing dispute, while we were in the middle of a resolution process, someone else interfered and "offered to help." When I was not willing to accept their interference due to specific concerns, they ignored me and started an entire new set-up. All which had preceded that interference had then become ignored. Instead, I was falsely accused of refusing to seek rsolution. Then a Requests for comment/Researcher99 page was created and I was fully set-up.

I have made a chronology there to bring you up to speed on all of the relevant history of the problem. I know it's a lot to read, but I have really been through a lot! I really do need a sincere and dedicated AMA's help.

Could you please help? If you could, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks.

Researcher 23:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your willingness to possibly help. In your response on my TALK page, I am glad to oblige your friendly request.

Nereocystis appears to be stalking me and is outright seeking to sabotage me at every point. Most everybody else who appears at the polygamy article are usually temporary, not really committed to the actual topic anyway. But Nereocystis appeared first as a sneaky vandal and then later as an outright anti-polygamist. Even though Nereocystis does not really know important facts and issues about the topic, they never leave and only target the article and my edits with their hostility.

They attack my every corrective edit. They have sabotaged an anti-polygamy article I tried to create (as another resolution attempt I was making). They have called for the RFC against me, knowing that anti-polygamists are easily found.

Tacticly, Nereocystis takes hostile actions very aggressively, numerously, and rapidly. Then they follow those overwhelming actions up by rv'ing, stopping, or enlisting other easily-found anti-polygamists to stop any attempt I make to correct their falsehoods or errors. As far back as May 7, 2005, I have been calling for the "Don't Be Reckless" Wikipedia Guidelines which mandate a return to TRUE STATUS QUO in order to then TALK, in controversial topics. But Nereocystis has protracted that never-let-me-post-or-correct-the-article strategy for all these months all so that they can now try to hide behind their intent to prevent that Wikipedia Guideline of STATUS QUO from being implemented. Here's some comprehensive proof of just how aggressive they are, Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof.

In response to your requested bullet items:

1a. Among the many attempts, here is one example. In all things, I seek a WIN-WIN but am always refused. This following example is the resolution discussion which was interrupted by new-comer Uriah923, which led to their unapproved action of changing the TALK page to the current versions and discussions of "outlines" which are not valid to begin with because I had not approved Uriah923's interruption in the first place.

Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005

Pattern Observed on how some disputed issues DID conclude

The Needed Steps to Change the Pattern in order to Resolve and Prevent these Disputes

Offers for Good Faith Acts

Hope for this Positive Conclusion

DISCUSSION Segment

1b. Here is another example of a different sub-topical dispute on "related" page, group marriage. They refused to work with or discusss a fully accurate, NPOV, well-cited proposal for a solution on the group marriage article, "The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage". Hiding behind claims that they were authorized to "table" the discussion (when I had never approved of that), they only really were refusing that proposal because it is their hostile intent to falsely define polygamy into something it is not, and my well-source-cited facts got in their way.

2a. Here are just 3 examples of the pattern of Nereocystis outright destroying everything I do, when I try to correct the destructions they make.

• My 13 edits of 19:09, 6 June 2005 to 20:20, 6 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 22:09, 6 June 2005.
• My 18 edits of 14:24, 30 June 2005 to 16:38, 30 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 17:05, 1 July 2005.
• My 11 edits of 16:42, 8 July 2005 to 16:58, 8 July 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 16:59, 8 July 2005.

2b. Also, there were VERY SUSPICIOUS actions in the deliberate sabotage of the anti-polygamy article I tried to create. (I could also provide evidence of where they apply a deliberately obfuscatatory tactic of outright saying untrue things as fact, calling NPOV as POV, calling POV as NPOV, and even being caught lying.)

3. They falsely assert that I refused the resolution offered by Uriah923 when we were already in the middle of the original resolution discussion.

Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. As tonight starts the beginning of a 3-day holiday weekend here, I am not sure if I will be able to get back until next Tuesday. But I know it will take some time for you to get into the research here too. We can be in contact after the long weekend anyway, if you need. I so appreciate your willingness to help. Thanks. Researcher 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional item: On the polygamy TALK page, I just now posted the discovery of another sneaky attempt to try to to hide the posted evidence from public view of their abuse and of the dispute itself. I also added the NPOV tags there as they are aggressively proceeding ahead anyway, despite my non-acceptance. Researcher 20:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Responding on User's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 22:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Polygamy dispute

Researcher contacted many AMA members, most of which have agreed to help. Normally I'd send an inquiry to the coordinator, but this particular dispute seems tricky, so I have no problem if the whole AMA gets involved. :)

I believe that this dispute is being caused by a lack of an acceptable and reasonable resolution strategy between the two parties, rather than an ongoing disagreement over the article's content. The presence of Uriah923 as an unofficial mediator further complicates this issue, as the dispute can now be separated into before and after Uriah923 intervened. There is one particular article of Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia: Be bold in updating pages that states:

"If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:

1. Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)

2. List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)"

Researcher99 believes that this particular article mandates a return to the article's status quo (which he considers to be an April revision of the article) before the dispute resolution process can continue. Nereocystis objects to a reversion, stating that too many valid edits would be lost. As a result of these interpretations of this policy (which I believe is just a guideline and may not apply to this dispute anyway), I have not been able to make any progress resolving the issue yet.

I believe that an IRC chat between the two parties (as well as any AMA members that wished to join in) may bear fruit, as the dispute is essentially running around in circles on the talk page, going nowhere and generating an extremely large amount of discussion to wade through. An IRC chat would force both parties to state their specific grievances succinctly; this is something that I have yet to see on the talk pages and RFCs. If a resolution fails to arise from the IRC chat (which, I admit, is the probable outcome), I believe that nothing short of official mediation will succeed.

Message by User:Metasquares. Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 23:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. While I don't believe that removing the RFC is necessary for mediation to take place, I agree that it will expedite mediation. Do you think that I should ask Researcher99 and Nereocystis if they would like to withdraw the RFC and begin mediation? Metasquares 00:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up to date. I look forward to the next step. Mediation is sounding better all the time, though we do need to determine the issues which are being mediated. Nereocystis 01:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Neigel von Teighen, you may witness the lie that Nereocystis told on Metasquares's TALK page. I posted a reply there, proving the outright false claims being made. It also proves that it has been Nereocystis's deliberately prolonged tactic to continue and extend the problems with abuse so far into this date in order to specifically prevent the TRUE STATUS QUO from seeming reasonable at this later date. To ignore the Wikipedia Guideliness simply because Nereocystis purposely obfuscated, filibustered, and delayed correcting the article to TRUE STUATS QUO for so many months only serves to validate their abuse and intention. Researcher 20:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered via email --Neigel von Teighen 22:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

This is in response to your last comments on the Talk:Polygamy page, [1]. While your comments were not a direct accusation, they echoed Researcher99's allegations that I, Kewp, am a sockpuppet of Nereocystis, [2] . I have more than 1000 edits, [3] and am certainly not a sockpuppet. I understand that you are Researcher99's advocate, but I would appreciate if you wouldn't encourage baseless accusations like this one because they are unhelpful in the larger scale and help only to further obscure the issue. Thank you. Oh, and on a side note, I am a woman, so if you refer to me in a post, could you please refer to me as "she" and not "he"? thanks again. Kewp 06:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Neigel, I appreciated hearing from you. I hope that this mediation goes as well as possible for everyone.--Kewp 13:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Rose

You obviously take your responsibilities seriously with regard to keeping the content in WP in excellent condition. You voted for deletion of the material on Richard Rose. I'd like to share with you some information which might change your mind if it's still open. The man was certainly notable in his field, and was one of the top researchers/authorities in that area during the 1970s and 1980s. I agree that the promotional links should be deleted. Mr Rose died in 2005 (88 years) after a lengthly illness and the material is not a vanity. To avoid cluttering your page I'll stop here, I'd sure appreciate your contacting me at sharnish@att.net Thank you. Steve Harnish, Miami, FL.

The article doesn't shows the notability of R. Rose convincingly. Maybe, it's because of the disorder...--Neigel von Teighen 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it was obviously written by someone personally devoted to the man. It needs to be more hard-headed and encyclopedic in this venue. I have contacted the organization to see whether they would consider a re-write. I put some remarks on my personal page, which I can see is itself non-encyclopedic but Ok for a personal page. Here's the link [4] All the work is done by people who have day-jobs, so I'm not sure how quickly they can respond, but the comments were well taken by the ones I corresponded with so far. Best wishes. Sharnish 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm afraid I'm going to have to step down as chairman (and perhaps as a chairman too). There's no way, I could keep up with such a time-consuming job when I start my next fulltime mandatory research project. I already had time-issues and left the committee in the hands of a temporary chair, but I guess they didn't have much time either. I think we need more committee members to be able to do some effective work. Sorry, to have to disappoint you... :( - Mgm|^(talk) 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've updated my status at WP:MC

Answered on User's talk --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Researcher99

Please suggest the Researcher99 became familiar with user talk pages (Wikipedia:Talk page#User talk pages.

Researcher99 recently responded to a comment which I made on his talk page in August. I then responded to Researcher99. In the past, I requested mediation on his talk page, and he called that vandalism. Researcher99 apparently doesn't understand that user talk page are used for communicating with users.

While I don't have much to say to him now, when he directs a comment to me, I may choose to respond to it.

I do appreciate your attempt to get the dispute into mediation. Nereocystis 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you help Researcher99 to reach an agreement about the topic of discussion. He produces a lot of writing, but it seems undirected. He tends to repeat himself. Could you find out what he wants offline and explain it on the mediation page? I would appreciate it if he would seriously consider talking about the article itself as part of the process. Otherwise, it really isn't worth my time. I don't think that would hurt him either. Nereocystis 14:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess we move to arbitration next. Researcher99 seems uninterested in mediation after all. Nereocystis 16:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Has Researcher99 completely refused the mediation suggested by the mediator? I can't tell. Nereocystis 00:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you have filed an arbitration against me, I assume that you are turning down the mediation. Has Researcher99 made a decision about the mediation? Nereocystis 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should strongly encourage Researcher99 to reconsider the mediation offer. The current status of mediation allows us both to get what we want. We would discuss past behavior, then the text of the polygamy article. Since it is mediation, neither of us is in danger of being banned. With arbitration, there is a good chance that Researcher99 will receive some type of punishment; I may as well. If Researcher99's goal is to get me banned, then arbitration is necessary, at the risk of his own banning. If his goal is to continue working on the polygamy article, mediation is a better option. Forcing arbitration is silly, and perhaps dangerous. Nereocystis 23:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation II

Have you tried contacting other mediators on the "active" list? Anyone should be able to take over and run things for a while. If you compare that list to the people who edited WP:RFM, you may find whoever was most recently active mediating. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation accepted

Hello, I have assigned User:Andrevan to the mediation filed. I am waiting for his reply, but please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#.5B.5BUser:Researcher99.5D.5D_in_dispute_with_.5B.5BUser:Nereocystis.5D.5D_and_others. Thanks, Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

RFAr

Hello, why have you listed one of my changes [5] on the "Abuses on Polygamy article" RFAr[6]? My name is not even mentioned in the the "Involved parties" section, yet you list one of my changes in your "Statement by advocate of party 1" preliminary evidence section. How does one of my changes relate to the RFAr on Nereocystis? Unless you want to include me in the Involved Parties, then I don't think that this qualifies as evidence against Nereocystis. Especially since, as a non-involved party, I am not given the chance in this RFAr to defend myself/ explain my actions. I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter. Thanks. --Kewp (t) 04:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered on User's talk --Neigel von Teighen 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment from an Arbitrator

Please refrain from making overly legalistic motions and comments in the prosecution of your client's case. Not only are you incorrect in asserting that the case should have been opened (the policy says that a MINIMUM of 24 hours will pass; we can choose to allow more time to pass if we desire), but the Arbitration Committee is not well-inclined toward legalistic maneuvering by parties or their advocates. I strongly urge that you focus instead on presenting an organized view of your client's case and of the evidence supporting it. Remember, Wikipedia is not an experiment in bureaucracy. Kelly Martin 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 20:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy has been accepted; it is a merger of the two requests. A brief statement of the case would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence Fred Bauder 17:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you --Neigel von Teighen 20:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered on User's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 22:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

You know that I'm advocating User:Researcher99 in the Polygamy dispute and have some questions.

1. Is there a way to know if User:Nereocystis, User:Dan100, User:Kewp have the same IP address as the Spatfield (talk · contribs)? It would be important to us to know if one of this users used a sockpuppet to call the AfD of the now deleted Anti-polygamy.
2. Also, is there a way to undelete only the diffs of Anti-polygamy or to undelete it and move it into a user page? Can someone restore this article's history?

Thank you very much! (I saw your message about the /Workshop section too. It's very interesting) --Neigel von Teighen 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is the one to ask. Effective representation of any client in an arbitration case requires skillful use of /Workshop. Fred Bauder 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy case. →Raul654 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --Neigel von Teighen 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks, I appreciate it. Unfortunately I'm pretty busy w an arbcom case of my own, and its going VERY badly. Please have a look: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision.

Sam Spade 20:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 15:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy for Answers in Genesis

Hi! Thanks for replying. I'm currently busy, but I'll write in a few hours. Christianjb 20:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, many people see me as part of the problem, so please accept that this is only one point of view.

The problem as I see it is that this page is being subjected to an on/off edit war and abuse of the talk page. Virtually all of this has resulted from anonymous editors. The typical pattern is for a series of anonymous edits in the morning, in which large pieces of text are removed that are critical of the organization, with generally no explanation on the talk page. As far as I can tell, virtually all of the anonymous edits are there to help promote the organization. I am not in disagreement with all of the edits- it is important that supporters get to explain their views- but it has to be done in the proper context with respect for the work of all editors.

A bit of background on Answers in Genesis. They're an 'apologetics' creationist organization based in the US and have a prominent website and distribute magazines and other creationist materials. They have beliefs that are in direct contradiction with 'mainstream' science in numerous areas. Speaking as a holder of a PhD in physics, I think it's safe to say that no matter what your opinion on the validity of their claims- Answers in Genesis are not accepted into mainstream scientific journals, nor is their science accepted by the vast majority of mainstream scientists.

The good news is that in the last week or so the edit-war has significantly calmed down and we're no longer seeing so many anonymous edits. I do not know what's going to happen in the future though. I do not want to see this page become a piece of propaganda for their organization, though by the same token, it should fairly explain their core views and mission.

What I would like to see done: Firstly, I want there to be more respect on the talk page. I have seen insulting statements made by anonymous editors and also a general disregard for adhering to the proper layout of the talk page. In particular, some anonymous edits have been interspersed with others' comments without signing- making it very hard to determine who is writing.

I would like to see people using the talk page to discuss large edits before making them. It is tiring when I have spent 20 minutes of my time explaining the reason for an edit on the talk page to see it reverted with no discussion or reasoned debate. Generally I see 'POV- removed' written in the edit summary, which is hardly nuanced and not generally fair to the other editors.

It may be impossible, but I would like to see a reduction in the number of anonymous edits being made. Virtually all of the bad behavior comes from anon. users (though user 'Agapetos Angel' has been particularly difficult as well).

In general, everything could be solved if the editors all showed a little more respect and courtesy for eachother. I know that's hard to enforce.

Finally, some guidance needs to be given towards how to write an article about such a controversial organization. Here are some views that I've heard (paraphrasing):

• You can't criticize their beliefs, it's like writing "there's no God" on a page about Islam. (I disagree)

• You criticized the organization for stating X in article Y, but in article W they state Z. (The organization's web pages are numerous, and it's generally possible to wriggle out of any corner by quoting one sentence or another. This is a trademark of pseudoscience- it's impossible to pin their arguments down. THis ends up in recursive editing, such as: The organization claims X which is in contradiction to mainstream science + but they are aware of this argument on page Y and have prepared a detailed rebuttal. + However, their rebuttal is contradicted by the well known theorem Z. + But the author of Z actually agrees with the organization when he said W. + But statement W was arguably taken out of context.... etc. etc.

• The job of this page is not to refute the organization- this can be done on other Wikipedia pages discussing creationism. (I disagree- Answers in Genesis have their own unique 'brand' of theology and creationism.)

• You're making up blatant lies to discredit an organization (usually said against me.)

My own personal view is that it's not encyclopedic to just list the scientific claims of Answers in Genesis without placing them into the context of mainstream science. However, I am reluctant to criticize them so much on their theology, given that this is a religious belief which is not testable in the same way as a scientific statement. I am quite happy in most instances to explain their interpretation of a scriptural text without further comment.

The reason I'm editing the Answers in Genesis page is primarily to highlight what I consider to be their problematic statements. In crude language- I'm setting out to make them look bad, by cherry-picking their most controversial comments. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with this, if one can separate the motivation of the editor from the actual edits. I am quite happy to work with editors whose primary motivation is to show Answers in Genesis in a good light- as long as we both have respect for eachother and can source our edits. This yin/yang approach actually seems to work in producing a page that is 'balanced' in the sense that it shows both the good and bad parts of an inherently controversial organization. I don't expect anyone to be entirely neutral with respect to their beliefs.

In closing, the Answers in Genesis page is currently not too bad. One thing I don't want to see is an attempt to start over again or throw out a lot of the hard work that has already been done. What I do want to see is a continued attempt for everyone to show respect for other editors and to continue to improve the page. I honestly believe that it wouldn't take much to turn this article into a very good example of what Wikipedia can do with a controversial subject.

Thanks for your time and effort. I'm going to be possibly away from my computer in spots over the next couple of weeks due to a vacation, but feel free to interact with the other editors on the Answers in Genesis page. I'm not looking for someone to protect just my interests.

Feel free to ask me any more questions. Christianjb 11:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for advocacy

Hi, I'd like some advice from a member advocate. I've been a regular contributor to the Joan of Arc article for about three months now. During the last week two other editors have turned 25 footnotes into nonsense.

What are the options when well-intentioned editors make this mistake? I've posted a message on the talk page. I doubt either has the skills to correct the problem they created. One obvious but heavy handed option would be to revert to the last correctly formatted version. Could page protection be appropriate?

Maybe there are other solutions I don't know about. Please offer suggestions. Durova 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered in user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 19:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates

Hi, you are recieving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries, and consider noting it on the main list of members on WP:AMA. If you are, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) (please direct any responses to my talk page) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood! --Neigel von Teighen 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

a bit quick off the mark......

Umm.......i would appreciate it if you wernt so quick off the mark correcting pages im still creating. The page on Brant Broughton I had created you had locked for editing within 90 seconds, which caused an edit conflict on my second save. Could you just wait a bit longer in future please, say 15 minutes? If I havent changed the page in the last 15 minutes, ive probably moved onto the next village in the list ( list of places in Lincolnshire. Thank you.

Answered in user's talk (User talk:Lincspoacher) --Neigel von Teighen 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative AMA proposal

Hey Neigel, come around and check out the alternative proposal I put up on the AMA talk page. Maybe a good middle-of-the-road solution until we can reorganize ourselves? Wally 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator

Dang it, I was probably going to nominate you. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA vs AC

I suppose I was out of line, but at least I was honest about my feelings. I can't help but respond if AC wants to throw snide gauntlets at AMA. Unsigned post by User:KeithTyler

Answered on user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)