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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and the respective talk page if you have not already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Technical University

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on the page of METU. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Karenga

I am editing at Ron Karenga
I am editing anonymously to avoid fights with partisan fanatics
I am being careful to edit factually and avoid POV
Please do not call my edits vandalism.

67.15.76.111 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sock puppets on Jehovah Witnesses page

Greetings, I am attempting a mediation of the Jehovahs Winesses page. I noticed a statement from you on Wikipedia: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)[reply]

My RfA

Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 03:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CarbonCopy. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CarbonCopy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CarbonCopy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]