User talk:CarbonCopy

3RR on Cindy Sheehan
You stated that I am endanger of the three revert rule pertaining to the Cindy Sheehan article. I assume this is in reference to the deletion of "The next day, Bush began his five-week vacation." This line has no purpose and should be placed under George Bush's article. By placing it directly after Two things in Bush's speech "enraged" Sheehan: "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission," and "The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause." makes GWB seem callous, thus violating the NPOV rule.

We all know that Bush took a five week vacation, and that he has surpassed Ronald Reagan as the President who has spent the most time away from the White House, but the fact remains that this information belongs under his page not Sheehan's.

I apologize for my constant edits. I am only trying to make sure that the article maintains a NPOV.

Again, sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you. (above unsigned 3 December 2005 User:68.33.224.69)

West Azarbaijan
Thank you. Finally, someone noticed. Thanx. --TimBits 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stanley Williams
Thank you, that page desperately needed protection, constant edit conflicts and no way to keep up with the vandals. CarbonCopy 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "stacked vandalism" had become serious enough of a problem that the rollback tool was proving to be ineffective. A proposal has been made for semi-protection for situations such as this one, please refer to Semi-protection policy and the respective talk page if you have not already.  Hall Monitor 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Middle East Technical University
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the page of METU. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ron Karenga

 * 1) I am editing at Ron Karenga
 * 2) I am editing anonymously to avoid fights with partisan fanatics
 * 3) I am being careful to edit factually and avoid POV
 * 4) Please do not call my edits vandalism.
 * 67.15.76.111 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On reviewing the edit history in more detail, I agree that this is a content dispute, not vandalism. My apologies for so labelling it.  I can't say I agree as the the NPOV of the edits, but I'll leave that issue up to the other editors who work on that page. CarbonCopy (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Jehovah Witnesses page
Greetings, I am attempting a mediation of the Jehovahs Winesses page. I noticed a statement from you on Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 12 2005 Jehovah's Witnesses, "I gave up on the page when an obvious pack of sock puppets showed up a few weeks ago." Does this mean that you know of a single individual who is "sock puppeting" under several names? Or something else. Thanks, SteveMc 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
 Pgk's RFA 

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk( talk ) 11:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Albanians
Hello mate! I am really surprised to see an Englishman (or at least a native speaker of English) show immense curiosity in the Albanian case. However, I strongly dissagree in the matter of religious conflicts between Albanians. Once again, thank you for your interest. --Pjetër Bogdani jr. 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RFM/KM
You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin. CastAStone|(talk) 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at WP:AUTO
There's currently an edit war going on at WP:AUTO, with Democritus trying to insert the language he proposed in the Deborah McGuinness case, despite a lack of consensus for it. We've started a section to discuss his language on the talk page. Please contribute your opinion if you're interested. Thanks. -- BrianH123 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion
Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.
 * You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
 * You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Sorry, but I´m a user of wikipedia pt, and I don´t remember that I remove content of pages. I think this IP is used by other users too. bye.. 200.158.46.152 00:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CVU status
The Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to and/or  status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)