User talk:Imaglang

Advocate

If your serious, I know exactly where you could help, but be careful, and scope it out 1st (I don't want you in over your head!). Talk:Atheism is in bad shape, which is why User:20040302 was on Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance asking for help with it. There are some really unfriendly people there, some of whom hate me (yes me! :O quite a bit, and the discussion is badly bogged down. Have a look and see if your up for it. If not, I could give you dozens of ideas, but this is the most intractable situation I know of. BTW, I'm not looking for you to advocate for my, or anybodys POV (advocate your own, or none, or whatever you like). What I'm looking for rather is a new personality w a focus on civility, progress, NPOV, intellectual honesty, etc... Let me know what you think, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I read quickly the talk page and I found lots of unpolite comments specially against you. I'll contact myself with the user you're talking about. Thanks! --Neigel von Teighen 23:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks alot for your involvement, the page is looking much better, and I think you were largely involved in assisting in that progress. Let me know if theres anything I can help you with, and thanks again. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't do anything! It seems that Dec. 10th 2004 should be declared the Talk:Atheism day: everything changed since then! Is there any other problematic site like that? I'd be glad to help too. Thanks for advicing me. --Neigel von Teighen 22:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding above

Just to let you know: Sam Spade is a self-identified "anti-atheist" "fundamentalist theist" known for POV pushing.

See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Sam_Spade for a list of users opposing him. Sam Spade and his cronies would like nothing more than for Wikipedia to promote POV pushing and deletionism.

• Spade says, "I am militantly anti-atheist. ... I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God."

Here's some more Sam Spade quotes:

• "For me, 'without theism' translates directly to 'apart from God'. Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal."
• "I also happen to know God is conscious, since I have a personal relationship w him (this is an extra bonus not everybody has, or so I hear). Since God is all, and imminent within all things, all things are alive and conscious to me. Its called Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, Sanatana Dharma, lots of things, but it is in no way illogical or disprovable. Science is simply one way of reading Gods law."
• "As far as 'what’s the point of having a God', that’s a nonsensical question to a believer in an immanent God. We might as soon ask 'why exist?'. God is more than efficient; he is the only basis for reality. His absence leads to a removal of existence. In other words, without him there is nothing."

Sam Spade is not as innocent as he purports to be. Don't fall into the trap, Sam Spade is full of crap! Adraeus 23:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm also theist (not fundamentalist) and I really don't care about your problems with Sam, and, if he isn't innocent, I will manage it personally.

Anyway, I wanted to discuss about your definition of ideology and why I think your religion definition is a rather a definition of the other word. Will you? --Neigel von Teighen 23:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Advocate for User:Vfp15 on Charles Darwin

I accept your gracious offer. The Summary on Talk:Charles Darwin best explains my position on why the factoid contibutes something to our knowledge of the man. The initial posting on July 19th was by User:Brutannica and the word coincidentally was put in on 16 September.

Finally, I agree this IS a silly thing to argue about, but I care about the principle. It feels like I'm being bullied into submission. Personally frustrating of course, but also, there is a feel that some people have taken over an article as their own little baby. Like I said many many times, I'm open to compromise. I insist that the point be mentioned somewhere, but I'm completely flexible as to where and how it is mentioned. Vincent 00:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes: I have one more justification, mentioned at the very bottom of the summary section.

Google backs up the relevance of the shared AL & CD birthday with over 4000 results, while it only yields 14 results for the same search on Koizumi, Hawking and birthday.

Again thanks for your support. Vincent 03:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll help you and join as a part in the mediation (as the AMA guidelines and somewhere in the Mediation/Arbitration policies say, the advocate(s) are also litigants). You should know that I voted against the factoid because of not being completely informed about the situation in there. I think the factoid is irrelevant, but abusive posts (and reverts) aren't. The question is: how will we communicate, by e-mail, by my talk page or your talk page? That's the first thing.

I'll add the request for mediation into my watchlist and add all I can. --Neigel von Teighen 17:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm boycotting the vote 1) beause it was proposed too late in the process, simply as a way to quiet me, and 2) because POV by a majority is still POV. I stand by my summary until (or if) we reach arbitration. I will accept the decision of the arbitration committee as final and will stop edits if they find against me, but will continue edits if they do not accept to hear the case.

BTW, You'll notice that I ran a vote earlier. In that case, the opinions were divided and it really was a matter of preference and style, not of fact.

Duncharris abused his admin privileges yesterday. He disabled by wikipedia access, even though I was keeping within the three reverts per day rule. Concerned that I was maybe in fact abusing a rule, I read the 3RR page and saw that it was perfectly acceptable to do this, in fact it's even acceptable to ask friends to use their three-reverts on my behalf. An example of abuse would be to use sockpuppets. I don't always log in to edit, but I always make it obvious who I am.

Finally, I have been accused of vandalism. Sorry, I am reinserting a fact, not a lie, not dirty words or jokes. However some people have been inserting comments into the article instead of on the talk page, yet they have not been accused of vandalism.

I don't think this has gotten to arbitration level YET. Would you please email me in case Duncharris abuses his privileges again? My email is v/f/p/1/5 A/T h/o/t/m/a/i/l DOT c/o/m Thanks.Vincent 07:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Neigel. I've reinserted the factoid after a one-week truce. See Talk:Charles Darwin/Lincoln#Comments. Hopefully people will have cooled off enough to accept a compromise. If the revert war resumes, I will take it to arbitration. I think I have a very good case. I don't mean that the arbitrators will personally agree that the factoid belongs in there, but I think they will agree as arbitrators that it passes the wikipedia tests. If the revert war does resume, 1) I will ask that the arbitration issues a comment on the talk page saying that the factoid can stay in and 2) ban for 24 hours any current participant in the edit war that deletes the factoid within the next month. I will also ask for personal apologies from a few users including User:Adraeus (see his comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Ten Most Influential People of the Second_Millennium). I will also ask that User:Fredrik have his admin rights removed. He seems to think edit wars are fun, which I think hardly befits a wikipedia admin. Vincent 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. Noisy removed the fact again, so I went ahead and asked for arbitration. Thanks for your support. Vincent 05:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hellenism

I am certainly not fluent, but I know some Greek, yes. (and, sorry, I should have said TLG:). Also, regarding the above comments, thanks for being willing to tackle the less pleasant depths of WP! dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation as you, dab. --Neigel von Teighen 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

After I wrote my response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation, I saw that the case you alluded to is one that I am trying to participate in. Please contact me offline about it. -- llywrch 18:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neigel, thanks for starting the poll about the new election. I appreciate your input and I see nothing wrong with an election, but I am thinking about making a call for our first annual members meeting before having a new election since we have never had a members meeting yet. — © Alex756 19:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 19:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Nigel, I appreciated your feedback on my wiki-error of misplaced comments. I initially thought that it was sent as help, and I do thank you for taking the time to get me going in the right direction.[[User:Stude62|"user: stude62"]] 02:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi. Looking over your edits I like what I see. Thanks for your work against vandalism and towards resolving disputes. However I am not supporting your self-nomination on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Please don't take this personally; I (along with some other Wikipedians) like to see a good deal more than the your c. 200 edits to make an evaluation. I think your small number of edits is your most likely roadblock towards adminship at this time. Know that you may withdraw your nomination for the time if you wish. Keep up the good work and develop a longer edit history, and you'll probably have my enthusiastic support for adminship in the future. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 20:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Heya, I noticed you withdrew your RfA, probably a wise decision. Don't sweat it too much, with the good grace you displayed in withdrawing your RfA you'll make admin in no time as soon as you rack up enough edits. Keep up the good work! --fvw* 01:16, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Voluntary advice

As far as dealing with giving advice, my opinion is that our job as volunteers is to offer the advice in the spirit of cooperation with the member seeking help. If they don't accept the advice, well, the issue then becomes do you want to keep helping them or do you want them to realize if they don't really want your advice. They should either be upfront about that or run the risk of making you question your role; does everyone understand what AMA members are doing? Probably not. I got a call from someone at Red Herring a while back and they were running a story about Wikipedia. They could not figure out what the AMA was doing. I tried to explain to the writer about the dispute resolution process and about Wikipedia but she did not get it; really that is what selfless volunteerism is all about. Let me know if this helps, if not we can continue our discussion about this topic. Sorry it took a few days to respond, it is just that I have had the flu, always the best way to get me fast is to send me an email message. I check that account at least twice a day. — © Alex756 02:16, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)