User talk:Climb It Change

Climb It Change (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Please drop me a line. Or don't. Either way, you've just done exactly what I told you to do.

Obama edits
In regards to this edit, if you'd like to insert the word "allegedly," you'll have to get consensus on the talk page to do that. Adding that word seems quite POV, so you'll need to make sure there's consensus that enough doubt exists in reliable sources. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Climb It Change, Thanks for your dedication to the Obama Page. I'm kind of new to this whole Wikipedia editing thing, but I understand the basics. What I don't understand it this request for "consensus" that Daywalker has asked. To me, the consensus is that Barack was probably born in Hawaii, but that it has not been proven, which is exactly why people on the talk page have said, let's not bring this up any more for the umpteenth thousanth time, because again, the consensus is that no one knows, which is why people keep bringing it up. Furthermore, the consensus seems to be that Obama has a valid "Certification of Live Birth" which is fine, but that does not prove where he was born. Many US Citizens and people born in other countries have valid "Certifications of Live Birth." One of the other guys on the talk page, even says his kids have "Certifications of Live Birth," which is fine, but those certifications don't prove they were born in the US, nor to they exempt them from Constitutional law. I'm also not sure why reliable sources are being ignored. Rush Limbaugh, CNN, Mark Levin, and such seem to me to be more reliable than The Washington Post. Is Wikipedia being hijacked by a small political group? Maybe you have more experience on Wikipedia than I. What can we do to help moderators see that consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Stone (talk • contribs) 03:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you will have to gain consensus on talk before making this edit. Always when making controversial changes seek consensus first. Landon1980 (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I agree what has been said above but your username is hilarious! Bigbluefish (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts warning
FYI, you want to read WP:3RR in regards to Barack Obama. Please note that "3RR" is not an entitlement, and doing 2 reverts, for example for several days, is just as bad and blockable at admin discretion. Please discuss on the talk page rather than edit war the article. Thanks. Also, do not ever mark content changes as "minor" as you did here. Thanks! rootology ( C )( T ) 18:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama Article Probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- Brothejr (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell is Scibaby??... this message says I am a "Sockpuppet" of scibaby. Bozmo, I know you don't like making decisions without taking EVIDENCE into account, based on your reversion of my edit, but I have no idea who "scibaby" is.

Climb It Change,

I will assume good faith just far enough to give you a little explanation. Scibaby is an banned individual, probably a teenager, who creates a huge number of accounts, edits a couple of other places, often leaves the accounts "sleeping" and then tries to start a fight on Global Warming articles. Its very dull, and there have been a couple of attacks a day for perhaps a year now. This repeated pattern makes it a bit harder to observe all the usual courtesies. Scibaby has done this with a very large number of accounts and accounts which fit the pattern of a few tinkering edits and then hit global warming with silly vandalising edits tend to get blocked on sight. There is also a tendency to try to waste admin time by starting insincere discussions ("Trolling"). You fit the pattern and your account name is also very reminiscent of that individual, and looks like you intended to head for Global Warming and vandalism from the start. You have hardly invested much time on this account, if you are genuinely not Scibaby I suggest you start a new account and try to concentrate on positive edits rather than rushing into contraversial areas with low quality edits. --BozMo talk 10:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I can assure you that I am not scibaby, and I only included sourced information on the global warming page. I don't know where scibaby is, but i doubt we would have the same I.P. address, you could check to verify it. If I started a new account, then wouldn't that be a sockpuppet of "Climb It Change" ? Just because you don't like the content of an edit doesn't make it "low quality" when the information presented is the result of verified scientific data.Climb It Change (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not in any doubt you are Scibaby. Scibaby uses a wide range of IPs, and often protests "check the IPs". Switching IPs widely is very easy to do but WP:BEANS prevents explanation. Scibaby has a signature pattern which you fit closely. As for the edits I only note that this was a close match to an edit made by two other Scibaby socks within 24 hours, and the content was already discussed at length on the talk page. I am now unwatching this page because we are done here. --BozMo talk 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)