User talk:Pointer22

This has been left previously, please acknowledge that you have been informed of this. Thank you "after he was charged with destroying a document relating to the Aramark case.[10][11]" This an untruth statement. As been mentioned various editorialized articles misquoted the truth. If you are going to use this type of material please insure it is at least factual. The former president was originally charged with asking a VP to destroy a copy of a letter to her from the food service vendor but this was dropped to a FOA voilation charge. These were the ONLY charges ever made. "apparently led to the swift decision by Meadors that it was time to go" How is it appropriate to include a journalist attempt at humor, This just adds an editorialized opinion to what you say should be a factual document. We agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACM7 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC) As I have explained previously, the correct place to discuss this is at Talk:Allen Meadors, ACM7. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Pointer22, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Allen C. Meadors (August 23)[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Allen C. Meadors.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! buff bills 7701 12:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Allen C. Meadors was accepted[edit]

Allen C. Meadors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allen Meadors may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Allen Meadors for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allen Meadors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Meadors until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Allen Meadors, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the information about Meadors is negative does not mean that it cannot be on the page. One of the Five pillars is to be neutral - that includes the good and the bad information, provided it is written in a neutral point of view. Primefac (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Allen Meadors shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Primefac (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Allen Meadors. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eric-Wester (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Allen Meadors, you may be blocked from editing. Eric-Wester (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not correct but based upon hearsay journalism. Very misleading and not correct.

The added information using editorial articles based on one very negative reporter isn't based on adequate statements. As we see everyday, misleading information or slanted information is published. We would recommend that you contact Dr.Meadors or his attorney(if he has one) to get clarification on the misleading information. We know from living in Conway at the time that several of the addition information from the articles/editorial are incorrect. Such as former President Meadows was never charged with destroying any documents,"swift decision by Meadors that it was time to go".[7]"-this was just Max's attempt at being cute, Meadows had worked out a buyout and left the university weeks before this any discussions regarding an investigation emerged; Meadows never discussed/negotiated anything, he was working out of country,when his attorney was offered a FOA citation in liew of coming back to the US to have a hearing on a he said/she said regarding the VP's copy of the letter that the food vendor had sent her. We would guess there are other, but you should ask Meadows. his email is acm@uncp.edu/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACM7 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: ). Thank you. Primefac (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the information regarding the Food Service Vendor be removed until this is resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.241.45.230 (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced to reliable sources, so I don't see why it should be removed, unless of course you have reliable sources that contradict the account given in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pointer22, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Allen Meadors shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Majora (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Majora (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just agree on some language that is more adequate and not slanted toward one or two points of views. Allow facts not opinions to prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying. You keep deciding that the discussion is over (when it's clearly not) and just editing the page directly. Primefac (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Primefac allow to change our input and we are not allow to add supportive statements?

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: ). Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ANI discussion removed in favor of this one instead as this would be the proper forum --Majora (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several of our additions have been removed (all with supportive references)/

I request to be unblocked. I have been blocked for a year and would like to have access again. Thank you

December 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]