User talk:Carrp/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 03:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV tag, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

You put a NPOV tage on 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls, but there is no NPOV dispute on the article's talk page. Either list specific NPOV qualms on the talk page (addressing specific content), or the tag doesn't belong. Kevin Baas | talk 18:30, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Problem

Cobb cited one case detailed by an --as yet anonymous-- informant, that a Triad GSI employee had told staff at the Columbus County Board of Elections office to inconspicuously note a prepared recount result, then report this data irrespective of the actual recount. The Triad GSI representative had also tampered with Triad voting equipment in the offices.

"This is going on, all over the state," Cobb told the hearing. - [1]

Please tell me that you are perceptive enough to see that this is a problem. Kevin Baas | talk 00:13, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

RFC

You have been listed on WP:RFC.

Regarding the listing of support for a problem with diffs 2 and 3, even if you did not consider the talk page at that time to have established a consensus, clearly you could see that there was a significant component still interested in the item as an ongoing event. And this is really all that it should take. Of the ongoing events and conflicts at the right of Current Events, only about four are of personal interest to me. Should the rest be erased? Should the Arab-Israeli conflict be removed because it's not showing any signs of ending? I think not, because there are clearly others with significant interest in the rest of these.

It concerns me that the interest is so high in removing the election controversy as an ongoing event, when concern is not so great for the removal of other ongoing events. This means that the motivations are more in depth than people just thinking that it's "not an ongoing event". This is why the RFC was raised, and in that I support it.

Please note that I was careful to NOT sign my name to the section which said that I had encountered a problem resolving anything with you, because I definitely have not. As far as I'm concerned you have treated all of my edits fairly. It is merely the issue with repeatedly removing the ongoing event in the face of demonstrated interest which I felt warranted a vote of support. — Cortonin | Talk 13:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverts on Current events

It is policy, when reverting, always to explain your reverts. Furthermore, I find it particularly bad form for your edit summary to say you were reverting to my edit, when this was not in fact the case. --Korath ^会話 21:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In an attempt to keep up with Kevin Baas's rapid edits, I neglected to list the removal of the word "controversy". I apologize. Carrp 21:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)