User talk:Pokey5945

This user may have left Wikipedia. Pokey5945 has not edited Wikipedia since 29 June 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Pokey5945! And thanks for the contribution to the Ward Churchill article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Pokey5945, and have fun! Ombudsman 00:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User page?

Perhaps you would like to create a user page for yourself, even something very brief. I find that having some words to look at helps other editors get a sense of your editing interest. Especially with jumping in with first edits on a politicized topic, it assuages some doubts about possible editing agenda.

Btw. I'd like to see the emails where CU staff discuss hiring Churchill because of ethnicity. If you have a citation/link to those, I think it merits inclusion. But just rumors that such emails might exist isn't WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chance to fight vandalism

While I certainly disagree with some of the credence you give to the anti-Churchill faction than I would like, I greatly appreciate that you've refrained from the sort of ranting that has repeatedly marred the page. So with that, I was hoping you could help me fight the destructive editing by User:Fluterst who keeps sticking in nonsense like (and reverting perfectly neutral changes while s/he's at it):

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is a disgraced American academic, arguably the most hated in the country.

If you roll back that sort of thing when you see it, you'll win lots of warm fuzzies from me :-). And you'll probably get a sense of why I'm a bit defensive about what are pretty shallow criticisms that keep appearing (maybe I jumped on your changes more than I should have, given your newness to WP and a history of seeing this stuff). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Wikipedia 3 revert rule is there to ensure people do not engage in edit wars over article content by requiring editors to not revert more than 3 times in any 24 hour period. It appears that you have performed 4 reverts on Ward Churchill in the past few hours so I am kindly reminding you to not do any more reverts. I encourage you to discuss the information on the article talk page.--MONGO 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

If you can, please make a vote on the admin. election of LOTLE if you can. Every vote counts, I think your complaint is legit. CJK 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I saw you posted at the top. Thanks for voting. CJK 21:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article from churchill

http://www.geocities.com/travbailey/index.html I added this article to the Ward Churchill page--enjoy the article! I loved it. Tell me what you think. Travb 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Churchill talk page

I very much appreciate your well-stated comments on the Churchill talk page. If you look through the recent comments on that page and on Churchill essay controversy talk page, you can see that I've been trying to deal with ad hominem attacks from Lulu that represent bad faith despite my bending over backward to assume good faith on his part. It's just nice not to be the only voice shouting in the wind. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World can't wait

This anon editor seems to keep inserting this petition thing on a number of pages, including Churchill's. See the Churchill talk page about this. You did good to remove it, in my opinion. Churchill might well have signed the petition (though if you say it's not verified, he might not have), but even if he did it seems trivial. Activists and academics sign lots of such things... I've signed a moderate number, and no one cares about my signature that much. So even if it had a proper cite, it's still unintersting. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbee

I only gave one piece of evidence showing the Tuscarora blood, but there are many more than "just one" source like you have posted. Please take a look at the discussion page, and you can see the other sources of this info. To me, the wording was fine the way it was, prior to your recent changes.--Roskerah 18:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isiah Thomas

Your edit was reverted since it is controversial information in a WP:BLP that was unsourced. It looks like a copy/paste, but you need to copy the text for the sources and not just the footnote numbers. You can considered re-adding the information if the actual sources are provided (i.e. edit the source article to get the actual citations).—Bagumba (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cosby BLP

Please take a few minutes and read WP:BLP, the guideline that keeps our biographies of living persons to the highest sources and most established facts. Don't put scandal and gossip into the Bill Cosby biography. Keep it to court actions only. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bill Cosby. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bill Cosby, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi, I'm a freshman at Clemson University and I am working on the article for Kevin Hart as an assignment for my english class. I was wondering if you could give me any tips or advice on how to approach editing a comedian's article or specific things that I should include in my writing. Any feedback would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msneed19 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: precursors of COINTELPRO

See this revision, reversion, and subsequent discussion with Apostle12. History of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is also something that could happen. But there is a lot of other stuff to work on for COINTELPRO, too, and it's very difficult to organize, so I'm glad you've taken an interest in the page! groupuscule (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC) groupuscule[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konnakol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vivint may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill

Regarding this edit, the cited source says "The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld a lower-court judge’s ruling that the University of Colorado officials sued by Ward Churchill were immune from his lawsuit accusing them of violating his First Amendment rights when they dismissed him as a tenured ethnic-studies professor on the Boulder campus." Would you mind specifying what the "false representation" is with that source cite in your revert summary? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individual defendants were dropped before even the first case. Churchill agreed to give CU the same defenses those defendants could have claimed, which is why the qualified immunity claim held up for CU.Pokey5945 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given what the current source says, can you refer me to a different source for what you've explained? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed language is plagiarized from the current source--the CHE. If you click through to the Denver Post story linked in the CHE, you'll see that the courts granted quasi-judicial immunity to the university. What may have confused the WP authors and the CHE author is that the Post story then goes on to explain how the regents are entitled to such immunity. But the story does not explain why the regents' individual immunity extends to the university. This is a major gap, since the regents are not being sued. It was explained in earlier news reports, but if you want the best explanation for the legal details, it's best to read the actual court opinion--not short news items. As I explained above, Churchill signed a pre-trial deal that gave CU the same defenses the individual defendants could have claimed. That's why--as mentioned in the DP story--the decision to grant immunity waited until after the trial was over.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a decent explanation from the Denver University law school blog: http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/churchills-motion-to-amend-judgment-to-dismiss.html Pokey5945 (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding on the clarification. I have a law background (J.D.) so I'm not surprised the media reports were oversimplified for expediency. It might be a good idea to swap out the sourcing at the article, ditching the CHE cite in favor of a direct cite to the Denver Post article, to avoid similar confusion in the future. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivint

Pokey, you are apparently deliberately violating Wikipedia policy with your frequent deletions of well-sourced, relevant material regarding the past legal actions. You do not give any reasons for doing so. I believe you are a disgruntled former customer with an axe to grind, or possibly a disgruntled former employee. Which is it? Your section is WAY too long. The legal actions are only a small portion of the total Vivint picture, yet you seem determined to expand it into a very huge section. This is way too much emphasis on one aspect of the company and that alone is a bsis for reverting your material.

For your information, I am not a Vivint employee or receiving money from Vivint. I write this material of my own free will. You, apparently, have little insight into Vivint. Most of the customers are extremely satisfied, and as the quote from Todd indicates, the legal problems are simply some of the 'growing pains' of having a company with a huge work-force of part-time employees knocking on millions of doors. The 1500 complaints with the BBB in 3 years is about 500/year, compared to about 3,000,000 doors knocked in the same period of time, or about .015% When you look at the complaints, too, you see things like 'i just signed the contract to get them to leave, I really didn't want the contract' or bullshit like that. that's not to say some are legitimate, but you are placing this way out of perspective. i'm required to write this here before I get you blocked. It looks like you've been threatened with blocking before on the Cosby page.

Don't revert/delete my material again.

Oldnoah (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Oldnoah[reply]

Pokey, I would like to add to Oldnoah's warning. You are consistently deleting relevant, cited information that compromises the integrity of the page about Vivint. The information that you provide, while relevant in small portions, should not constitute the bulk of the page about the company. Stating that they are under federal investigation in the main "About Vivint" section is detrimental and shows a blatant disregard to include accurate and informative information. Stop adding to the legal section and stop removing relevant, cited sources about the company, especially about awards and accomplishments that the company has achieved. If you ignore this warning, I will report you for vandalism.

Ceb687 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will indeed ignore your warning. You should definitely report me for vandalism. Please go do it now.Pokey5945 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning

Hello, I'm UseTheCommandLine. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 16:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attack on any specific editor--only an observation about the politicization of the article. You're violating policy by deleting my talk page comments, and I think you know it.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lumbee page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages Link Spam

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.--Aragorn8392 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another wack job pollutes my user page with empty threats. Yawn.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Oxford Round Table, especially if it involves living persons. This is specifically regarding the talk page comment about plastic surgery. Thank you. Bahooka (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the fact that someone had plastic surgery is hardly defamatory. That's a real stretch, given that plastic surgery is nothing to be ashamed of.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Panther Trial Revisions

Hello. Given the historical significance of the trial at the time I'd wanted to develop this section beyond its previous narrow focus but you keep undoing my revisions. Just wondering what your reason is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politigrafica (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss major revisions on the article's talk page. Also, please review WP's NPOV policy.Pokey5945 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ericka Huggins

Hello,

Please do not add defamatory information against consensus to a biography of a living person as you did at Ericka Huggins. It is inappropriate to add discussion of trial testimony alleging criminal acts when this person was not convicted of any crime. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot be a consensus until *after* the specific issue has been discussed on the article's talk page.Pokey5945 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have expressed BLP concerns on the talk page about the material you have been adding and none have agreed with you. That's a working consensus against you. Please do not add the material again until talk page consensus clearly favors it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you're referring to. It would help if you could be more specific. From my perspective, I've been extremely cooperative.Pokey5945 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really claim that "participation" in "torture" that preceded a murder "does not imply guilt at all"? I find that reasoning very hard to accept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huggins participated in the taped interrogation, which was the basis for her indictment and trial. She also witnessed the torture. It's not controversial; she did not deny it. We can rewrite the sentence to make that distinction between participation in torture and participation in interrogation.Pokey5945 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Ward Churchill shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I already requested talk page discussion, but thanks anyway.Pokey5945 (talk)

Elaine Brown

Please do not add this content, which in my opinion, clearly violates WP:BLPCRIME, back into this article. She was neither charged nor convicted of involvement in this killing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Brown at BLPN

Hello,

There is a discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard about this article, which you edited today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. Rap Brown

inclusion of the race of the deputies is p.o.v. unless you have relaible secondary sources establishing notability of that fact. Protocrat (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP. The journalistic sources cited establish the notability for you, and it was an issue at trial. Please stop deleting this passage.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Pokey5945. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Van Patter

Thanks for your reasoned arguments in the Betty Van Patter stuff. I don't know why some people want to air-brush history. I was acquainted with some of the family members 20 years ago. It was a very painful event for them and no doubt it still is. Chisme (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The frustrating thing is that I agree with WP:BLP, but we're dealing with folks who would rather play Wiki prosecutor instead of trying to research and write a decent article.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vivint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TCPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keesings access

Hey Pokey5945, I have approved your access to Wikipedia:Keesings but need you to follow the instructions in the email I sent a week ago. Sadads (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pokey5945. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]