User talk:Wally/archive2

AMA Request for Assistance

Good afternoon,

The AMA has received your request for assistance and I am responding on its behalf. Before anything proceeds, I have several queries:

1) You did not offer any specific pages that were in contention; which are they specifically?

That will need some reading into to get an understanding. However, suffice it to say that the evidence is there which will indicate that Exploding Box is not as neutral as he wants to make out and is indeed just another POV warrior.

2) On the request for arbitration page, it is alleged that you have several alternate user names, i.e. "sockpuppets". These include User:Friends of Robert, User: Robert Brookes, and User:Robert Blair. Are you, in fact, the same user as these others, and to what end did you create them if you are?

Well this is one of those non-issues about which much ado has been made. Robert Brookes was active from 9 Aug - 11 Sep, Friends of Robert was active from 12 Sep - 3 Oct and Robert the Bruce from 3 oct - date. As you can see there has been no use of sock puppets only the change of user names. I am not Robert Blair which is easily verifiable by those with access to the IP addresses

3) How do you feel, specifically, that the action taken against you has been done wrongfully?

Well on the merits of the cases it all boils down to a POV conflict. I believe and have stated that he is misusing the structures of Wikipedia so as to force his POV by silencing different views (there is clear evidence of this). In addition I believe that this second launching of Arbitraion which was conspired by both EB and one Raul654 as a means to avoid mediation. (see my comments under procedural in Statement by affected party.)

4) What steps have you personally taken to resolve this action before it reached the arbitration stage?

Well this action by Exploding Boy has all been pretty fast. It started with a RfC which died a natural death from lack of community interest, he then pushed straight on to Arbitration which was rejected and then having cut a deal with a member of the AC launched a second RfA. Between the two I made a request for mediation which he spurned.

- Robert the Bruce 21:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OFFICIAL AMA MEETING NOTICE

The second AMA IRC Membership meeting was held on Sunday January 30, 2005 at 19:00 UTC on freenode.net IRC channel #AMA. Attending were Wally, Metasquares, Anthere, Sam Spade, and alex756 (coordinator). The log of the second meeting can be found here: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

"The third AMA Membership meeting will be held on Saturday February 12, 2005 at 17:00 UTC on freenode IRC channel #AMA. That is 12:00 Noon Eastern NA Time, 9 AM Pacific NA Time, and 6 PM Central European (Amsterdam/Stokholm/Warsaw/Venice) Time. All members are invited to attend.

Suggested Topics and Specific Proposals

MEMBERS PLEASE REVIEW

Suggestions for topics/proposals and agenda to be discussed at the next meeting are to be found at: Wikipedia:AMA Meeting (suggested topics). All members are requested to make proposals there and respond to proposals on the talk page there before the beginning of the next meeting so discussion can be held forthwith concerning such proposals. Thank you, your Coordinator.

The coordinator is requesting that members who have not done so already submit the following information for the upcoming coordinator’s report:

• How many individuals did you help as an advocate
• What is the maximum amount of time you put into a case
• Do you feel your work as an advocate was successful?
• How can the advocacy program of the AMA be improved?

Thank you. Please submit your responses here if you have not done so already. — © Alex756 23:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to your post, I'd be happy to discuss any issues you might want to go over with you privately, Wally. Just send me an email and I will go over the questions you have. — © Alex756 05:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ray Foster vs Dcreemer

Would you say this issue is closed?

Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Peerage Enquiries

I do apologise for having taken so long to repsond to your enquiries, but, as you may know, I have taken a vacation from editing for the last month or so.

"Primarily, is it not standard practice to not have a page for a title in the British nobility if there was only one holder of said title before extinction (i.e. with the Earl Alexander of Hillsborough or the Earl of Kilmuir? I've been pawing through articles on lists of titles and a disturbing number have had pages dedicated to the title when there has been only a single holder. Isn't this contrary to usual practice?" I would think that it would be unnecessary to have articles on a dignity which has been held by a single person; all information could be incorporated into the article on that person.

"Also, a secondary question. Women who were created peers (before women gained the right to sit in the Lords - I never knew they'd not had it, as baronies regularly passed through women [i.e. the Strange barony, the Lucas barony, etc.]) were not technically life peers, were they? Wasn't it in the same way most women who were granted any title were handled, essentially given a peerage with remainder to heirs-male, which as heirs-male legally must inherit from fathers would cause it to simply pass out of existence anyway? Also, is it not true that there have never been any dedicated life peerages given above the rank of baron (one could make a case for the viscountcies Tonypandy and Whitelaw, but didn't these just pass out of existence due to lack of heirs rather than specific intent to grant them for life?)?" You are correct in asserting that women who inherited baronies were not life peeresses. Moreover, the viscountcies of Tonypandy & Whitelaw were not life peerages, since they were inheritable (whether they were actually inherited is not relevant). But, there have been life peerages above the rank of baron (though it has not customary in modern times). Note, for instance, William Douglas, who was created Duke of Hamilton for life.

"What is the policy on titling articles where singularly-held peerages are concerned? In some places (besides royals who hold non-inheritable peerages), persons are noted as "John Doe, Earl Doe" and in some they are noted as "Joseph Doe, 1st Viscount Doe", despite the fact that in both cases the titles became extinct upon the death of the person to whom they were granted. What is the rationale behind this, and is there any sort of reason or rhyme to it?" Normally, a non-royal hereditary peer would be numbered (even if he is the only holder), while a royal peer or a life peer would not.

Again, forgive me for the lengthy delay. -- Emsworth 16:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moral relativism

I read your inquiry about universism. I, too, never heard of it. I wrote much of the relativism article as it now stands. It was a paen for universism before, with references throughout the article. I kept a separate blurb on it in to avoid a revert war, but it is clearly a religion of some sort and has nothing to do with philosophical relativism. Note my comments on the talk page. Best... icut4u

Hi Wally, thanks for your query about Universism. I've removed that section from the article to the talk page, with an explanation at Talk:Moral relativism. Universism is a new religious movement and has nothing to do with moral relativism as a philosophical position. There's a vote going on as to whether to undelete the article on Universism at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement. Hope this helps. Best, SlimVirgin 00:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Robert of Gloucester

Hi, Wally - not sure exactly what inspired you to move the Robert of Gloucester entry to Robert of Gloucester (historian), but now the redirects are all messed up, you can't get from the Robert Earl of Gloucester entry to the Robert of Gloucester Historian entry, the talk pages seemed bollocksed, etc. Alas, I'm not savvy enough to sort them out, but would you mind going back over your work so that the page can at least be reached? Cheers, Lutefish 18:22, Mar 19, 2005 (EST)

Leo Amery

You removed the link to the "History Today" article from Leopold Stennett Amery as it was 404ing; you might like to know that Google still has a cache of it (although I'd be loathe to add this to the page, since it may drop out of their cache later). page 1; page 2; page 3. Hope it's as interesting as you expected... Shimgray 23:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

What seems to be the problem with Mike Garcia? Danny 00:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding the question of the first two albums has been resolved. I will look into the other one. I will have time this weekend to see the Sam Spade case. My personal life has been very hectic lately. Danny 01:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wally, I think you are under the immpression that I am having trouble with Mike Garcia. This is not the case. I just made a comment on the AMA page Xxpor 19:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asm sure you understand that the case of Mike Garcia is very sensitive and delicate. That said, I am asking you to let me handle it. I will do what I can to alleviate the situation. Danny 01:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wally, thank's for your invitation. The story is quite simple: Mike Garcia once added info about a supposed leak of a new Tool album, supposedly called Teleincision. Others, including myself, tried to qualify these rumors. Taking into account that there has been the same rumor mill preceeding the last Tool release in 2001, and we are trying to write an encyclopedie entry and not a news site here, it seemed justified to be cautios. Like I expected, the supposed leak and the title is a fake (according to a post on the band's website on 03 Jun [1] recording is still in progress, there is not even an official release date yet). Nevertheless Mike Garcia not only keeps the entry in the discography, asking me and Cassious987 to stop our reversing his changes (the exact same day he filed for AMA) and also includes the information that the album has already been leaked on the main band page. To confirm this, he points to a board, on which you easily get the drift that this is just a hoax (...two inches tall green letters spelling out "WHO GOT SLIMED BY THIS?!" should do that... and considering that there are some 8 posts only on that entire thread should make you worry, too.).. Please don't ask me, why Mike Garcia voted YES on a VFD right here Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Teleincision. Best regards --Johnnyw 23:43, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Thank you

Wally, thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination. I very much appreciate your support. SlimVirgin 00:46, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping with Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. I'd like you to know that my request for Alex's involvement is a good faith request for him to step in and provide some guidence in our unusual circumstance, and altho I have been periodically annoyed with you, I am not convinced that you have failed your client in any way. Heres hoping we can improve our own interaction, as well as that of our clients. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sir Godfrey Martin Huggins, 1st Viscount Malvern

Hi, Wally, I just realized I never asked you this. For a few months I have been looking for a usable picture for this longest reigning (?) "Prime Minister" (23 uninterrupted years) in the British realm. Any ideas or leads would be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely, El_C 04:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My "vote"

I'm content to leave it as it is. It does not look like a consensus will be forthcoming either way very soon, so changing to fit one of the standard categories would not affect the outcome, and I think the comment adequately expresses my gut reaction to the fiasco. --Michael Snow 21:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think (also?) that it was carelessness in not finding out what the AMA actually does, and what it is set out to do. Also, for the record, Wally, I wish to say that I found the comment which Arbitrator Ambi issued in her vote (and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure), to be rather intimidating and unbecoming of her position. Moreover, I found her 'suggestion' elsewhere that you were trolling (for simply dispassionately arguing your position – which I agree with) completely unacceptable. Alas, I did not vote for her, nor did I vote against her, for that matter (though in light of witnessing her aforementioned conduct, I would be voting against now). El_C 01:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia and Bleed Like Me

Thanks for contacting me. No, I don't think this is a case meriting an arbcom injunction--Mike may have his reasons for preferring a particular edit on this page but has yet to articulate them. It only came to my attention because he made an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection saying that he thought another, anonymous editor should be blocked for vandalism, [2], and also made a seemingly bogus Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress entry on the same subject [3]. He doesn't seem to distinguish between simple vandalism and a content dispute, but this doesn't make him unique on Wikipedia. Perhaps he genuinely cannot tell the difference or doesn't know what to look for. I think he will probably be just fine if he learns how to assume good faith and practise some wikiquette.

My main reason for opposing an injunction at this stage is that I don't think he would understand what such an injunction implied--it would probably only get him into more trouble without having the desired effect. I really don't get a sense of Mike acting maliciously here. I think he really is acting in good faith, if with limited understanding. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the edits I already cited, plus User talk:62.64.167.220 and his AMA application, made at about the same time he made the bogus edits on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, it seems to me that he hasn't the first clue about procedure, despite his considerable experience in editing. Some people are hopeless with money, others have a fear of technology, and it looks to me as if, in a similar way, formal social interaction may be Mike's blind spot. I'm also taking into account the negative effect of previous attempts to ban him, compared to the broadly successful effort to rehabilitate him. The carrot may be a lot more use than the stick in this instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I saw this on Tony's talk and thought I should drop a note on your own talk too.) Mike's not on parole from the ArbCom at all - we've never dealt with him at any time. He was banned by Jimbo personally, and was allowed back in by Jimbo personally, with Danny as mentor. If you're getting serious problems with Michael, you should definitely email Danny, cc: Jimbo and Michael, with your concerns - David Gerard 19:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Signpost arbitration report

Sorry about the delay in responding, I've had lots to get done before my vacation. Thanks for volunteering to write the arbitration reports while I'm gone, it would be very much appreciated. I've asked Sj to fill in as guest editor during my absence, so you can coordinate things with him. Also, we've set up a newsroom as a place for the work of organizing each issue. In general, you can draft articles in your user space and then put a link to the article on the newsroom page.

With respect to the arbitration report specifically, I recommend being extra-careful about having a neutral tone and sticking to factually supported statements that can't reasonably be disputed. I've tried to avoid having editorial content in The Signpost so far, and arbitration is a particularly sensitive area. When reporting on cases that are still underway, I've approached the subject in terms of allegations rather than proven facts. Even for completed cases, it's frequently easier to refer to the findings of fact rather than state things as fact directly. I'm guessing that the Instantnood matter may take longer than a month to conclude, so hopefully you won't have to face the problem of writing about a case in which you represent one of the parties.

In order to make things easier for Sj, I'm asking people to have drafts of their articles ready for editing by midnight UTC on Saturday. This need not be absolutely complete and we should certainly still add new information up until publication, but I think having the last day to make final edits and put things together will be helpful. I appreciate your help and hope you enjoy working on this project. --Michael Snow 06:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Wally, thanks for the offer to help. Parsing arbitration cases isn't easy work. I take it you've read the previous reports; try to fully link to the discussions and decisions, and to add user names and find relevant comments from the ongoing process wherever possible. I'd like to get all of the articles started early this week, since it is my first week coordinating with everyone; give me an update when you start work on it. +sj + 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, noon UTC. Work with what you've got; if there's not much going on, you might report on some of the meta-discussion about those kinds of cases... +sj + 05:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

Hello Wally, I am new to Wikipedia; is this the place I can ask you to be my advocate wrt a dispute over freedom of expression at Wikipedia? Do I simply 'tell all' here or do I email you privately? Thank you! --JenniferSommers

Hi Wally, I've deleted it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting Proposal

Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbcomm report

Hi Wally,

could you update the existing arbcomm report to reflect the state of the world as of Sunday? I believe that four cases were closed last week, though you mentioned their work as moving slowly when you wrote on Wednesday... There was some controversy over the article's content. +sj + 15:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And will you be able to work on this week's report? +sj + 00:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Another ping! Welcome to week N. If you take a stab at it, I'll pitch in. +sj + 07:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wally!

For your vote and very supportive comments in my RfA. And thank you for setting the record straight on one particular (among several other false) allegation of misconduct on my part. It was very reassuring for me to see the responses made by other editors (wrt to the others allegations, ones you are well familliar with), which so unequivocally proved that, in this case, consensus is in favour of rationality, justice, and common sense. All qualities which you exhibit so prominently. You are a great credit, and asset to Wikipedia, Wally, and your help to me, specifically, continues to be invaluable, well surpassing, above and beyond, the call of duty. Yours always, El_C 03:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

UK Election

Whilst record breaking - are you sure that the Sunderland South consecutive first declaration counts as a Guiness record? CustardJack 16:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If the BBC say its a Guiness record then fair enough - I always thought that Guiness records tended not to be quite so esoteric CustardJack 16:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

TROLLs and such

Greetings from distant, signed lands. Will you be able to draft a week-19 TROLL report? I'll fill in the coverage from week 18; we just need the last week's arbitration events. +sj + 22:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm anxious to learn whether I will be included in this mystery report! :D El_C 23:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do pitch in with a quick coverage of the backlog. You can make it terribly short; a few sentences about each case, if you've read up on them all; it could be two sections at the end of the next T.R.O.L.L. Double-check with Michael Snow to make sure he's not planning on covering the same. +sj + 04:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I did try to catch up in this past issue, actually. Things look to have been fairly slow during the missed weeks, so the shortfall hopefully hasn't disturbed too many people. I quite understand that there are more important things than Wikipedia arbitration, so there's no need to apologize for having your priorities in order, I'm just grateful for the work you did manage to do in my absence. --Michael Snow 05:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. In addition to reporting vandalism, you may want to record on the user IP's talk page that vandalism occurred. Admins use the talk page as a record of vandalism. If it goes unreported then the first Admin to investigate will add a {{test}} tag to indicate it may have been a user test. If there are reports already on the IP's talk page then it will escalate to {{test2}} and beyond and may result in blocking the IP. Thanks for looking out for the articles! - Tεxτurε 17:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After making the three edits he has ceased all activity. In my experience, this can mean that he has logged off and since many AOL IPs are dynamic he will likely log on again under a different IP. Rather than block a legitimate user who may get the dynamic IP assigned to them after the vandal has left I feel it is best to merely "tag" the vandal and only act if the same IP continues to cause problems. - Tεxτurε 17:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

I'm not sure that accusing the situations he brings to the AMA of being his fault was an entirely productive course of action. Snowspinner 00:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Queen's Guard

I must confess that I do not know the answer. However, I think it is highly, highly unlikely that a member of the Queen's Guard would attack a tourist in such a fashion. I believe that an individual who bayonets another in the foot for merely touching him - even if he is a member of the Queen's Guard - would be guilty of assault. So, I think that it's very unlikely that this is true. -- Emsworth 21:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd edit

I've reverted your odd edit [4] of redirecting a page on a Peerage to its sole occupant; was there a particular reason you did this? Accident, perhaps?

James F. (talk) 20:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Although sensible, I suppose, it's definitely not standard practice (I've seen and edited dozens of single-use titles). Perhaps suggest this on the WikiProject?

James F. (talk) 21:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precedence

Hello, Wally. A peeress in her own right who is also married to a peer would be addressed by the higher title, as far as I am aware. So "Viscountess Davidson" would be correct in the case you ask.

As for titles held by only one individual: I think we generally permit articles on such titles to exist, though I personally feel that they would be better merged with the articles on the individuals themselves. -- Emsworth 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Info.

I may have some information to add to your arbitration with Mike, from something that happened about 2 months ago, although I wouldn't mind knowing more about what he's done recently first. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Thanks for the offer, but unless I missed something I don't know what would qualify me as a "victim" - I intervened in their edit war and locked the page. Mike thanked me (I happened to lock it on his version) - not what I wanted, I wanted something constructive, a source, but not impolite either. Then Infrogmation blocked the two participants, so I unlocked the page. As soon as I unlocked it the other edit warrior returned, and reverted the page again. And the war re-started between that IP and another IP who I assume to be Mike (based on the reverts and the over the top edit summaries).

That said, I was never more than an observer. I have no grounds to complain. And thus far at least, Mike is far down on my list of people I'd like to see action taken against. Guettarda 13:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Hoare

As I understand it, the rule is that people who are best known without their titles should be at that location, regardless of their level of knownness. Otherwise it becomes rather odd to decide who should get it and who shouldn't. Hoare is never known by his title, which was only given him shortly before his death. If it's good enough for Harold Macmillan or Stanley Baldwin, I don't see why it's not for Samuel Hoare. john k 29 June 2005 01:28 (UTC)

Hoare is substantially, commonly, and currently known as Samuel Hoare, and not as Lord Templewood. While Hoare is perhaps not as well known as other figures, to the extent that he is known, it is not as Lord Templewood. john k 29 June 2005 03:22 (UTC)

I'm new

I posted my first article "Iraq-al Qaeda Connection" and it was vandalized and I was personally attacked. What advice do you have for me? RonCram

Hi Wally

Hello Wally. I noticed you havne't been around for a few weeks, I hope everything is going well. When you return, I was wandering if I could still rely on your advocacy services with respect to my ongoing (and original) dispute with Sam Spade. All the best, El_C 01:33, 31 July 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 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Leo Ryan

Leo Ryan graduated from Campion Jesuit High School In Prairie du Chein,Wisconsin in 1943.Although Campion Jesuit High School has been closed,the Campion Graduates have 2 websites:CAMPION FOREVER aa alumni newsletter and Campion Jesuit High School website which is an ongoing project.I think both websites should be link to the Leo Ryan article and mention of Leo Ryan graduating from Campion Jesuit High School.My dad roomed with Leo Ryan at Campion.Thank you- Richard Dungar-La Crosse,Wisconsin-

Leo Ryan-

I did added a sentence to the Leo Ryan article about Leo Ryan graduating Campion Jesuit High School in 1943.Plus I was able to add 2 external links about Campion HS to the article.I thought I could help the cause out considering my dad and uncle graduated from Campion HS.I do not think there will be any objections. Thankyou-Richard F. Dungar-

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 19:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 06:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Image:Link.assassination.attempt.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Link.assassination.attempt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

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!)} 22:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Change for Wikipedians from Florida

The list Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Florida has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Florida. Your name has been removed from the list. If you would like to remain listed as a Wikipedian from Florida, please add [[Category:Wikipedians in Florida]] to your User page. thanks!

Dalbury^(Talk) 11:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC), a member of WikiProject Florida, a new project to improve articles about the state -- please join us and help!