Before you plan on typing a comment here please note: I am not an admin but a plain editor. I am not so versed in Wiki guidelines and rules that I can spit them out in a moments notice, but I can easily look them up. Most conversations/articles I tend to be quiet and let people edit away as long as the edits are constructive. However, I will step in when someone vandalizes an article, reverts against consensus, pushes a POV, or in any other way has a personal agenda. Please note that is my main goal. There are only a couple articles that I participate and the rest I monitor.

Thank you very much.

Also, if you would like to gossip, I will be happy to gossip with you too.

You undid several edits in one click, and in the process you re-introduced several errors that I had corrected. For example, Richard Nixon did not support the individual mandate, but Charles Grassley did. I had corrected that, but you've restored the error. Likewise the Acts are definitely controversial: most states are suing to have them overturned and most voters disapprove of them, so that is noteworthy. The article was very POV and some of my edits were to add balance. The article needs much careful and diligent work, but clicking "undo" does not measure up to the level of care and diligence required. Please revert your reversion and reconsider which edits you think should be changed. TVC 15 ( talk) 18:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I am retired. Don't bother to comment here I don't care. I don't feel like dealing with those trying to push their POV's into articles. I am way to burned out to deal with the BS anymore. Brothejr ( talk) 20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC). reply

There is no dispute about the statement that I added. No one has contested it in talk. Even the Obama campaign agrees it is true. Furthermore, I do believe there is consensus for that much in talk, because I made the statement there, and several editors responded to the general discussion, but not to my statement. Therefore, I am asking you to self revert your revert. Additionally, I notice your statement about not caring. But who is pushing here? Please ask yourself that. Notice that Wikidemon has been following the article, has a different POV than I do, and did not revert my edit. Thank you. William Jockusch ( talk) 13:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply