User talk:Keetoowah

Request for comments
Just to let you know that you have been cited on Requests for comment/Keetoowah. Regards, David.Monniaux 22:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA
I suggest you look into aquiring a WP:AMA advocate. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you present a brief summary of your case @ AMA_Requests_for_Assistance, making sure to include relevant links. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

apology
Dear Keetoowah,

I am sorry I referred to you as having "anger management" issues. I assume that is what you viewed as a personal attack. It was actually a taunt, but nevertheless I take full responsibility for taunting you and do hereby apologize. I will taunt you no more.

Your friend, Wolfman 04:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

peace
Keetoowah, an unsolicited and surely unappreciated word of advice. An RFC is no big deal, but only if you go make nice. Just say something like you've read the civility policy, and you were wrong, and you won't do it again. And basically, that will be the end of it. And you'll probably even get the satisfaction of seeing someone leave a stern note of admonishment on my Talk page for sparring with you. No big deal. But, if you take a combative stance and dig in your heels, then eventually you'll end up before arbcom. And they really will do something, like ban you. And even though it's just a website, it's still unpleasant to be kicked out of something. So just go promise to be nice, and actually be nice, and that will be the end of it. Do you really think the "I am being oppressed, someone attacked me too" defense is going to be effective? And as a peace-offering I'll share with you something a wise wikipedian (a magistrate in life) said to me when I was getting apopleptic over a right-wing troll once. I think you might find it useful:
 * I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can.

Wolfman 06:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Been a long time. Just popped in to say Hi.  I hope you've taken my "actually be nice" advice to heart.  Hope all is well with you.  Your friend, Wolfman 20:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
I am sorry that your edits were removed from the article. I did not remove them, although I did think about how to edit that material. I will look further at what you wrote on my talk page when I get a chance. I am in agreement with your distaste at Ward Churchill putting himself forth as a spokesman for the Native community but even more at those who have accepted him as a spokesman, like the people at the University of Colorado who put him on a fast tenure track, bypassing others, most of whom were not even interviewed. However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory and feel we should take his word for it. The real issues have to do with his actions and ideas. Fred Bauder 18:11, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding his admission at the talk at the University of Hawaii, I can't find it on Google, maybe it is not indexed yet. He certainly fooled a lot of people, if that turns out to be the case he certainly abused the affirmative action process. Frankly I don't think anyone with slight Native American blood should use that anyway. Unless you tell someone that you are of mixed blood they can't tell anyway. Fred Bauder 12:12, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pdn
Well, it was hearsay in a way, but not an essay of opinion. I lived in Los Alamos 1982-85 and am ashamed to say some of my late wife's friends often drove out in high powered sports cars (Datson Z's) over the desert to various reservations to buy family jewelry, silverware, trinkets at pawn shops. They scoffed when a new law forced the pawn shops off the reservations - their "treasure hunts" became much easier. But I do not have time to research the laws, and I surely won't contact the individuals, whom I have not seen since 1985, so you're entitled to remove what I said. Wish I had time - but it is a research project not only in law, but really requiring interviewing "locals" - anglos who buy, and Native Americans who lose family treasures. It is also an interesting case of a law designed to "protect", but whose consequences went the other way. Pdn 00:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I might add that I saw many of the items from New Mexico pawnshops displayed in the home of those people with the Datsuns, so it is not personal opinion, but word-of-mouth corroborated by direct observation. Also it may not have been a change of law but of administrative regulations, but, in any case you might check if pawnshops were moved off reservations circa 1983, and ask around the reservations as to what effect that had. Pdn 16:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits
I'd like to draw your attention to the following, from Minor edit:


 * Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text.

I'll grant that this is, to my mind at any rate, a pretty small matter, but you do seem to have done it approaching 700 times now... Alai 00:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill ethnicity issues
Hi,

I was just wondering whether we could give the ethnicity debate a bit of rest in the Churchill article? With all due respect and all, I am sure you have reasons, it is just that is something we can't really solve on Wikipedia by ourselves. I have reduced the issue to the following lines:


 * "Churchill's ethnicity has also come under severe attack by his critics, who claim his Native-American heritage is not authentic. He himself has claimed that he is "3/16" Indian."

and I think that together with the external links to sources pro and con should suffice. I hope you agree. -- Viajero 00:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

CU
I attended CU, Colorado University, although its legal name is the University of Colorado. There is a school called UC, the University of California. Fred Bauder 13:27, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill / Fred Bauder
While discussing Ward Churchill recently on his personal talk page, Fred Bauder said this: "However, judging from his appearance I do think he probably has some Native American ancestory".. I am part Native American (Mi'kmaq aka Micmac), most certainly more so than Mr. Churchill and I don't like to be judged by my appearance. I think Bauder's comments are offensive racial stereotyping. I think he ought to apologize and have basically said as much on his talk page. What do you think? Rex071404 216.153.214.94  08:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments about NOT judging people based upon their looks. I think that is completely stupid way to decide if someone is an Indian or not.  However, I don't think that we should engage in the actions of forcing people to apologize for stupid comments.  It stifles Free Speech and it makes martyers out of people like Ward Churchcill.  Churchill is a complete and total fraud and he is being defended by a bunch of people that think they are doing the right thing.  These are people that has a tunnel vision view of the world.  They believe that if someone is in an academic environment then no one has a right to question their authority.  It is blind, stupid, brain-washed, knee-jerk liberalism, but it is their right.  You read his comments and you got it.  You knew instinctively that the comment was stupid and wrong-headed, but the folks that blindly support Churchill when he lies about his Indian heritage truly believe that they are doing the right thing.  You and I know that to be stupid, but we can only argue against their point of view--not force them into false apologizes, etc.  Even if the Fred Bauder or the other Churchill apologists actually came clean and admitted that they are blindly defending Churchill on the fake Indian issue because they simply want to defend him because he is spouting off anti-America rhetoric, it wouldn't matter because we know that any apology would be as fake as Churchill.  Just drop it and point out to them that no one in Indian Country really believes Churchill to be an Indian--expect liberal, white folks.-Keetoowah 13:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said. For more of my reply to you, see Talk:Ward_Churchill. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  13:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy my reworking of the Ward Churchill article. Ward the turd is such a con artiste that I feel a little truth-saying might improve the eventual end article. It seems to have been hijacked by extreme liberals. I note from your bio material that you are in a much better position to make a rational assessment of Churchill's "work" which to my mind has been a good old fashioned "sting". Keep writing. Jolutz 02:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"extreme liberals"? please, is that the extent of your knowledge of political science or do you seriously believe that Churchill is a liberal?! Theres plenty of people defending his "indianess" in Indian Country (the American Indian Movement of Colorado that he is a part of, for one) and statements calling Churchill a con "artiste" jus t shows the duplicitous nature of your work on this wiki. -

Churchill
Please see my reply to you at User talk:Zen-master. -- Curps 23:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the Buffett link because I thought he was another example of a white guy with ethnic aspirations. I'm not sure if I'd be flattered or insulted if I were you. What do you think about WC's Native American status, is it true that many Indians have difficulties proving their ancestry of just those whose names start with Ward. TonyMarvin 02:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In my business, I meet new people all the time. I have describe my background in detail to win new business.  There is no way that I can get around my ethnic background in that situation because of the nature of what I have been doing for 25 years.  I get so many stories from folks--that mean well and they have big hearts--about how they have an Cherokee Indian Princess in their background.  When I hear that story--and I hear it a lot--I know that the person that is relating it to me because they want to make a connection with me, and that is a good thing, but I immediately know that they don't know what they are talking about.  The Cherokees have never had Kings, Queens, Princes or Princesses.  Royalty is a European thing.  It is not an Indian thing.  The Cherokees have never had European style royalty.  It is a myth that has been created in the mind of Americans that the Indians had royalty and so and so comes from that great line of royalty.  Being a fake Indian is great American tradition.  It is irritating actually because so many peopel with European backgrounds have started pretending to be Indians.  It is hip--post-1960s--to be an Indian. A white liberal cannot pretend to be an African-American or Asian-American because that will get them in a whole lot of trouble.  They could pretend to be Hispanic, but that would require the white liberal to learn Spanish and then explain why he speaks Spanish as his first language when his parents spoke English as their first language.  So that leaves American Indian.  There is great tradition for white folks earning street credibility by pretending to be an Indian.  It is similar to white teenage kids dressing up like inner city African-American kids and pretending to be gang-bangers.  WC is just the latest in great line of FAKE Indians that includes Johnny Cash and Cher.  Cash went around for years claiming to be Indian.  It was later proven that his background was Scottish/Irish and he apologized.  Cher went on national TV one nigh a week for years claiming to be a Cherokee Princess (which as I indicated before that there is no such thing).  She later apologist and now states that it is just part of the act.  Ward Churchcill can pretend to be American Indian and other liberals will defend him.  If WC pretended to be African-American no one would defend him.  He has not provided anything to prove his ancestry.  When you look at the Census Bureau numbers on the numbers of Indians in the U.S. and then you look at the actual tribal roles you will see a huge difference.  The tribal roles indicate that about one million American Indians are on tribal roles in the U.S., but when you look at the Census Bureau numbers it comes to 2 million to 4 million--depending upon how you count it.  What is the difference?  Well, the Tribal roles require that the individual Indian provide actual documentation of their American Indian background.  But the Census Bureau does NOT require that information.  Anyone can mark down whether they are an Indian or not.  There is no requirement to provide paperwork to back up the claim.  It is accepted at face value.  So what we have with WC is an example of someone that self-reports being an Indian and he does NOT have one shred of evidence that he is an Indian, so he would qualify under the Census Bureau rule (of absolutely no paperwork) but he does not qualify to be listed on any of the tribal roles that he claims membership in.  Notice that WC also claims to be in several different tribes from different parts of the country!!!  That is in itself is a joke.  He has claimed--in various magazine articles, newspaper articles, and book covers--to be Cherokee, Keetoowah, Creek and Metis.  He is part of three different tribes and he cannot provide the name of one ancestor in any of these tribes.  I can understand if he cannot provide the name of the Metis or he cannot provide the name of the Creek or he cannot provide the name of the Cherokee, BUT ALL THREE!!!!!  Notice also that in the different articles sometimes he is 1/4 Cherokee, 1/8 Creek, 1/8 Metis, but in other articles he is more Creek,less Cherokee (no Metis) and in completely different articles he is just Cherokee.  The story that he has been sticking with for the last couple years--now that everyone is paying attention--is that he is 3/16th Cherokee.  All of these claims are in writing.  That is crazy!  Look, if you are an American of German descent you can name either your mother or father of German descent, right?  But WC cannot name his mother or his father or his grandfather or grandmother, etc.  NO ONE!  Why?  Because it is a figment of his imagination.  Why does he claim to be something that he is not?  Because it provides him upward mobility in an academic environment.  Schools like the Univ of Colorado want to have a diverse teaching staff--it is a quality that is prized in the academic world (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but in their rush to fill slots with one Asian-American over here and one African-American over there, etc. they are willing to take just about anyone that claims an American Indian background.  Notice that the liberals that defend WC are always pointing to Russell Means.  Yes, Means is a well-known American Indian spokesman, but that does NOT make WC one!!!!!  Does that mean that WC is an Indian by association?  What a load.  Anyway, enough about WC's fake Indian story.  Your original question was: is it true that many Indians have difficulties proving their ancestry of just those whose names start with Ward?  Well, it would seem to me that it is difficult to prove his status because he has no information on which to prove his status.  it is simple as that.  If his mother was an Indian why can't he prove it?  If his father was an Indian why can't he prove it?  It is a joke.  I'm not even going to talk about Indiana where he grew up (there is not a large population of Indians there), etc.  Thanks for the question. At least someone is thinking about it and not just taking his claims at face value.--Keetoowah 13:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I must admit I approached this assuming that WC was a political radical who was being shafted for stating unpopular views which should be protected. But the more I learn about him the more it becomes clear that there are real problems there. Very interesting. TonyMarvin 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Janice Rogers Brown
Thanks for your work on the Janice Rogers Brown article - I appreciate having my occasional biases reigned in. I do think it's important to get a good start on articles for everyone on Bush's "potential nominee" list, as these pages will all get very hectic when Rehnquist actually leaves the court, and are likely to go through vandalism hell when someone actually gets the nom. btw, turns out there's quite a few of us law students here! -- BD thimk  22:13, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the way to handle the article is not to remove the critical information, but to balance that with the opposing point of view. -- BD thi m k 19:26, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
 * ??? Talk page was blank - were you suggesting that I post this suggestion there instead of here? -- BD thi m k 20:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)


 * I was typing the response when you visited the talk page. It is the nature of Wikipedia to make a choose between users and so my comments were eliminated.  What I basically stated is that the material probably should NOT be in the article, the reasoning against her nomination needs to presented in a balanced NPOV manner.  Having its own section with each point starred is not NPOV.  Also, there must an attempt to provide the reasons FOR her nomination also, that was not present.  Also, the comments were conclusionary, they did not provide the reasoning.  For example, the LA Times quote stated that she is bad.  Whoa!  That's an elementary school argument.  There was no explanation on WHY JRB is so "bad."  that is NOT a NPOV presentation.  So go ahead provide the arguments and thinking against JRB, but provide the arguments and thinking FOR JRB also.  And conclusionary statments just don't cut it.  Your contracts professor wants to hear 'why' the contract is void, he/she does not just want to hear you say the contract is void. Best,--Keetoowah 20:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Conversations
Hi Keetoowah, I'm glad to have been working with you on the stem cells article for this time. I've noticed, though, that your discussion entries seem to tend to be longer than is needed, and tend to make accusations. See you around, --Nectarflowed T 10:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, I have been following the stem cell page with close interest and to be frank I think your debating style stinks! You always address people in an overly aggressive manner. You make far too much use of CAPITAL LETTERS, what's all that about? Are you shouting? It looks very childish! And probably scares people away, which the article cannot afford to do! I have entered into the discussion on one or two pages and you replied to me in a way which frankly offended me. You said shit like "I think you are confused, you are mixing science with politics" I mean, c'mon. Of course i am mixing science with politics, thats what i do for a living as a PhD student in science and technology studies looking at social and political aspects surrounding S & T. So, before you shout your mouth off at other people why not just take a deep breadth, calm down, and consider your thoughts a little better before yuo go around offending people.--CJ 08:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear CJ: I don't know who you are, I've never written to you directly before, I don't know what specific situations that you are talking about and frankly since you are either unwilling or unable to give specific concrete examples of this behavior then I must write off all of your comments as the rambling thoughts of a confused college student.-Keetoowah 18:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look Keetowah, I aint the only one who thinks you're rude.--CJ 00:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: “Look CJ or Nicholas Cimini or whoever you are: I just don't care. You haven't given me an concrete specific examples and frankly it does not matter”.

Look Keetoowah, or whoever you are, it does matter and i have given you specific concrete examples. See the above quotation of yours that refers to "I think you are confused", which was directed at me. This is a specific concrete example. And it matters because you are rude, you are scaring people away from the Stem cell page and that incredibly biased article cannot afford to scare people away. --CJ 30 June 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Look CJ: I'm not going to change my behavior because I have nothing that needs to be changed.

Since we are on the topic of offering unsolicited advise, I would suggest that you make the changes to the stem cell article that you think need to be changed because I'm not apologizing to you and I'm not changing any of my behaviors and you are simply wasting your time asking me to change because it ain't gonna happen. Also, when you make the changes that you won't outline, even though I've asked for your input three times now, I'm will review them and decide it they are acceptable. That's the way that it worked when I was in graduate school 17 years ago.-Keetoowah 30 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Wikipedia was being controlled by you. You went to graduate school? Phew, the standards have obviously improved since your day! Where did u learn to spell?

As it happens, you haven't actually asked me for my input on the stem cell article (i think you have misinterpreted your own comments). You actually asked me to verify my criticisms of you - not my criticisms of the stem cell article. The criticisms of the stem cell article can be left for another day. First of all, i'd just like you to reconsider your combative debating style. Its not big and its not clever.--CJ 30 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

Re
Hey Keetowah, thanks for sticking up for me the other day on my talk page. (The situation did work itself out in good faith)--Nectarflowed T 30 June 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law
Hey Keetoowah, we're starting a major project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law to improve and standardize articles on areas of law derived from the common law of England. Are you interested in working on this? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Dr. Rice
Actually, I was on your side until you took that tone with me. I was only trying to say that while there might have been an accidental change in the word (and no one ever said it was accidental... they probably did it on purpose), doesn't mean that they "butchered" the laguage. I only used that term because it was used before. People who use foreign words are bound to say one incorrectly. I wasn't saying that is what her parents did, I was just saying in general. And I didn't mean that you were freaks, I just meant that it was absurd to be fighting over this issue. People name their children a lot worse. It was my mistake for offending you. But what do I know? I'm just a Dark Lord. --Lord Voldemort 6 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

please stop censoring condi rice article
Keetoowah, I notice you keep removing my links to relevant articles about 9/11 and Iraq in the ambiguous name of "NPOV". On the other hand, I feel that the Condi Rice article needs to function as more than just a mouthpiece for Bush and neo-con propaganda. The door to the controversial Iraq/9-11 link was opened with a quote that Condi says, to not substantiate that topic by linking to other relevant articles in Wikipedia seems like you are purposely sabotaging the content because you do not like what it might say about this "so-called" terrorist link. Please consider that your POV is not the only one that is relevant to the article. If you have a problem with the names of the article, or what they contain, please consider renaming them or changing their content. I agree that The Condi article is not the place for this debate, but the pages I linked to are. Thank you and also feel free to write me with your comments if you have any. --Howrealisreal 12:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
Please see article talk page r.e. judicial philosophy. Simon Dodd 01:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No reponse here or on article talk page, so disputed text has been replaced. Pleasee see article takl page before removing again; if it is removed without further discusison, it will be replaced.Simon Dodd 05:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

John Roberts
The court is called the "United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit" [cadc.uscourts.gov] what purpose is served by leaving off the last word?

Changes to Ward Churchill
After reading your last message at Talk:Ward Churchill I wondered what you meant about making "wholesale changes" to the article. I have now reviewed all my changes to the article. From my analysis I find that in nine edits I added just 31 words and removed 19 (of which 18 arose from the reversion of a personal opinion). This is not enough to be wholesale changes in my world. Could it be that the extent of your hostility toward me arises from a confusion with someone else who made more extensive changes? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 15:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

John G. Roberts, Jr.
Thanks for the edits. You and I were trying to fix it at the same time. Hope I didn't cause you too much trouble. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.
Hey - I wanted thank you for your diligence in reverting vandalism and calling out unsourced and POV comments in a wide swath of articles. I noticed that some folks have given you flack here about the style of your commentary, but whatever others may say, you're a valuable contributor to the project. -- BD2412 talk 19:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Given the tone of your response to User:Tothebarricades, I feel that your hostility is not simply personal to me and I am raising an entry at Requests for arbitration. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 07:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Al Franken
I saw that you reverted the section to the Al Franken article about the Boys and Girls club loan scandal that involved Air America. I want you to know that I removed it since Franken is not involved in any way with this ordeal. I suggest that if it is not in the Air America Radio article (which I'm pretty sure it is), then you add it there. It really has no place on Franken's page, and it would be cosidered POV to add it there. MicahMN | Talk 16:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added a segment, even though I really think it is unnecessary, to the Franken article about the scandal. If there are any credible outside sources linking Franken to the scandal, then we can add something, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a gossip column to throw unfounded accusations around. MicahMN | Talk 03:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay
Keetowah, I came here to remind you once again, after your recent comments on Talk:Guantanamo Bay, to assume good faith and not make personal attacks. We're all trying to make a better article - there's really no need to get angry in the course of a discussion that seems to have a perfectly reasonable compromise outcome, which is - as you and I both stated, though you managed to be aggressive enough to sound as if you disagreed - to clarify in the article what is current US law (which as you pointed out is not yet settled by the Supreme Court), and what is historical/international context. Rd232 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And in case you're wondering, it is considered a personal attack to describe other editors as not knowing what they're talking about. Instead, point out where and why things they have said are wrong, with sources if possible - that avoids anybody feeling it's personal, and is much more productive. Rd232 15:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, trying to be polite is AFAIK not required, but it is nice, and benefits all. When people are treated nice, they often listen better. —kooo 15:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia official policy of "no legal threats"
Please be aware of No legal threats, with regard to. -- Curps 19:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"
Please recheck the edit history. I did not make those comments. all I did was to edit them to make them readable. Zoe 21:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You've been reported to the sysops for vandalizing my User Page. --Eleemosynary 07:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bushhitler
Although I don't see you voting in AfD's very much, I thought you might want to throw in on this one. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Passed the bar - I'm a law-yer now - and I'm up to my neck in a very interesting case! -- BD2412 talk 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rice & Yo Yo Ma
I deleted that because Yo-Yo Ma is a cellist. Yo-Yo Ma does not play violin, so he could not have played the d minor violin sonata. Johannes Brahms wrote two (2) cello sonatas, in e minor & F major. In other words, it would be very difficult for Yo-Yo Ma to play a d minor violin sonata on his cello.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002S1G/002-0503332-9680041?v=glance if you want to look at a CD with the Brahms Cello Sonatas.

--Dri3s 19:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- there is an arragement which I found thanks to another user. Apologies. --Dri3s 23:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You are cordially invited
Please go to BigDaddy777's talk page. He would like to speak with you.Gator1 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Air_America-Gloria_Wise_loan_controversy
Figured you might be interested in this. --badlydrawnjeff 14:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah case. &rarr;Raul654 02:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Worst supporting actress razzie
I was curious if you have a reason for removing Condoleezza Rice from Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominees as she was indeed nominated for this category last year. --Fallout boy 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's vandalism, plain and simple. It will be reported as such. And, by the way, try to refrain from vandalizing my User Page, as you did a few months ago. Such behavior only serves to expose you as the vandal you are. Eleemosynary 03:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments
Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In serious cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Dispute resolution. Thank you. -Willmcw 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * revd the commentary of the leftwing nutjob.

Well, I guess your Arbitration Decision failed to convince you. You will be now reported for personal attacks. Eleemosynary 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

CfD
If you got a minute can you take a look at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 20:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Suzan Shown Harjo
Greetings. Since you had added mention of Suzan Shown Harjo to the Ward Churchill article, I was wondering if you would like to expand on that aspect (or any aspect) of the article I've started on Harjo herself. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
I've protected the page until things calm down over there, if you'd like a third party to try and find a happy medium, feel free to ask. However, what was going on from what I saw skimming the history can't continue. karmafist 03:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A Request For Comment has been opened at Requests for comment/Ward Churchill. karmafist 20:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to participate in the rfc above, that's fine. But hear this. I've been very patient up this point, hoping you had learned something from Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah and would try to act constructively towards editing that article. That period is over. Any more WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA vios at the Ward Churchill talk page from here on in, and I will block you 3 days retroactively for every vio since the ruling at Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. karmafist 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Very Well
Ok then, I counted 20(others can check if they like, or let me know about more) personal attacks towards users with views other than your own since the arbcom case against you closed, 3 times 20 equals 60 days or two months. Hopefully by then you will be able to interact in a civil manner with other editors. 08:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Think about it
''If you're willing to ask him to voluntarily enter the Mentorship Committee as someone needing to be mentored, I'd drop the block as long as he doesn't make any more Personal Attacks on anybody. karmafist 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)''

Wiki needs balance, and I would hate to see you banned. Please think about it. TDC 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
I've seen you around and we've had some contact. I am up in an RFA and would be interested in your opinion (no matter what it is) regarding my behavior in the BigDaddy777 RFC, no matter what it might be. Would you consider offering your opinion? Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States
I was hoping for your evaluation of the new sections I added to this article (Blood Quanta and Indian princesses); however, it appears you haven't been around lately. Rmhermen 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

AfD nomination of Diana Schaub
An editor has nominated Diana Schaub, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Keetoowah! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Peter Lawler -

GA reassessment of Stem cell
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)