User talk:D climacus/Archive. August 2009

Removing text from an article is not necessarily vandalism.
Read my edit summary and look at the edit, genius. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin
My recent edits to Political positions of Sarah Palin was not vandalism, a fact you would have known if you took the time to look at that article's talk page. I am a well established user and have edited that very page in the past, quite frankly, im baffled as to how you determined that I was a vandal. In the future, please assume good faith on the part of your fellow Wikipedians. Bonewah (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Baby
Dear David,

I am new to Wikipedia, but indeed seem to have gotten into a user war with another user. As I think can be amply verified by the citations I have included in my version of the article, as well as by going to the website, metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/amazingbaby/rewild), and by a simple Googling of Amazing Baby, the other user grossly misrepresents the character and reputation of the band. As you may know, metacritic compiles and synthesizes reviews of rock bands, and by their ranking Amazing Baby is solidly in the "generally positive" review ranking, which is nothing like the "mixed to negative" reviews the other user asserts. The other users remarks about their reputation being based on their style sense and social connections are simply bogus.

He or she clearly has some sort of personal grudge against the band, and his only goal is to sabotage their career. I will admit to being a fan of Amazing Baby, but my main goal is simply to present a more accurate and objective account of the band on Wikipedia. As you will see, I acknowledge that the band has not gotten only positive reviews, and I even quote from a negative one. I do not know what can actually be done to stop Wikipedia from being used to further a personal vendetta, but would be happy to cooperate in any way that I can.

Thank you for your attention to this rather bizarre dispute. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Derflude (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Derflude

Kyle Busch Vandalism
I am questioning how deleting the results is vandalism. I am the only one who updates those results and I haven't had time to update them. I don't see anybody else making an effort to. Now Kyle has an incorrect number of wins once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonicsmonkey3 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

about anrew mango
he writes history not genetics. his 2 inch article should not be so important to be appear in the main article--94.54.245.56 (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

Amazing Baby
Hi David, the user Derflude keeps on changing the page for the band amazing baby no matter who changes it. They are clearly in cahoots with their record label as the information is very biased. The band has received many scathing reviews which derflude will not allow to b posted on the page. While these reviews should not have Amazing baby be portrayed in a negative way, the current page is deceptively positive, and is clearly being used for advertising purposes rather than informational.

Thanks,

JrBiggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by JrBiggs (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

fiber to the x
Hello D climacus. I do think you should have discussed Opticalgirl's changes to the page "Fiber to the x" rather than just revert them and call them vandalism, especially as she states on the talk page that she is trying to clean up the article. Please reconsider. Thanks. --Deskford (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. She flagged she was going to help with the page.  Also her edits seemed thought out.  Even if some of them were wrong, it certainly does not look like vandalism to me. Remember WP:AGF ;)  Nelson50 T   21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  wadester 16  21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Character Nine
Hello D climacus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Character Nine - a page you tagged - because: '''The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 20:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jon Crowe
Hello D climacus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jon Crowe - a page you tagged - because: '''The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk ) 20:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Contested deletion of Character Nine and Jon Crowe
Hello. You recently contested the proposed deletion of the pages Character Nine and Jon Crowe. Your edit summaries did not suggest why you oppose deletion, though. Would you mind explaining your rationale? I presume you have reason to believe the subjects are notable, which would effect any future decision to bring the pages up for discussion at AfD. Note, too, that The Sound (EP) is currently proposed for deletion with similar concerns. (Feel free to respond here; I will add your talk page to my watchlist.) Best, Cnilep (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured I give the articles a chance to be updated. But after reading, WP:Notability (music) the pages does not appear to meet the guidelines. So, I agree with you on deleting the articles. You can revert my edits. If deleted, we can protect the page from re-creation? Sorry, I need to read all of Wikipedia Policies and guidelines.-- David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 18:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once a PROD template is removed, it cannot be used again. I have nominated both pages for deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Jon Crowe and Articles for deletion/Character Nine. Cnilep (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism
Margret Sanger held the same beliefs as hilter and I do not believe anyone who has such horrific beliefs should be protrayed in any way execpt the light in which they deserve. If you choose to keep her on Wikipedia I would hope that you would show her for what she is, a unamerican nazi sympathizer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.113.231 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Userpages
If you find another user's userpage that has something to correct, in part or in its entirety, it is considered polite to raise your concerns on the user's talk page before taking any action. This will allow the user to Fix the problem on their own. Thank you. David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, not if someone is indicating they are an administrator when they are not. If it was a typo or spelling error or some such, sure, but suggesting that you are an administrator when you are not is serious and could lead to you being blocked and it's not something I'm going to muck about with and wait while you ponder whether or not you might like to change it. While we give users a fair bit of space with regard to their userspace, they don't own it and it's still considered part of the project and others may edit it. As the Userpage guideline says, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community...Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space..." I also note that you previously claimed to have rollback rights when you did not. If you continue claiming or suggesting that you have rights you do not have you are going to find the AGF quickly evaporates. Doing it once could be an error and you will get the benefit of the doubt but more than that and it starts to look like deliberately trying to trick or mislead people. And to be honest, I edited it as soon as I saw it because I didn't want any new or inexperienced person looking at your userpage and believing you speak as an administrator when you have in fact been here for only two weeks. Which leads me to my second concern: your post leaves me wondering who the heck you are. You've been here for only two weeks and have less than 500 nearly all automated edits and you're reprimanding administrators and experienced editors? Have you used other accounts on Wikipedia? Looking at your first day of edits sure leaves me with the impression that this is not your first account and to be entirely honest, I have the suspicion that you may be Eddie Segoura. If this is an alternate account or a sock of another account, you might follow the suggestions on the sock policy. Sarah 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments regarding this. I learn something new every day on here. Sorry for any inconvenience that I have cause you. -- David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Request granted. Your user page is semi-protected indefinitely, per your request. Let me (or any other admin) know if you'd like this changed. Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of life peerages
I saw that you've created these lists after a discussion, but I must respectfully suggest that the titles should contain at least some reference to life peerages: how am I to know that John Major (1990-97), for example, is about the LPs he created? There was a discussion on Talk:List of Life Peerages but not yet a conclusion on the naming. Please can you consider re-naming all the pages you created to "Life peerages created by John Major (1990-97) or similar? regards, TrulyBlue (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅-- David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, that's much better. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Improper restore?
I didn't restore anything. I simply placed the notice of the pending speedy delete for copyright as I should have. Eeekster (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Measurement of biodiversity
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Measurement of biodiversity, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Measurement of biodiversity appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Measurement of biodiversity has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Measurement of biodiversity article is copied from Biodiversity. It has been suggested that the Measurement section on the Biodiversity article be split to Measurement of biodiversity. Its not copyrighted material. It has been on the Biodiversity article for a long time. Everything is ok. Keep up the good work.-- David ' - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter)''. 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why is it showing up on a web site? And why didn't you explain this when you removed the bot's message? Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You recently rolled back my addition.
Hi, Vern here. Earlier today I made a change to the disambiguation page for the search "Flesh"

The main reason why I had made that change was based on what happened to me. Perhaps I'm just a person into the habitual use of forethought, but Crayola did have a "flesh" color that was discontinued sometime in the 70s or 80s, and some people may want to know if it is a rumor or not.

And what better place to look then here?

So I made the change, as I have on here on various things, such as misspellings of certain words and such.

It almost shocked me to see "You Have New Messages"

Then find out that it was because someone else didn't see it fit to be on here.

I don't know the exactly Code of Conduct, word for word, but I think something should be on that disambiguation page, regarding the previously ran name on a Crayola crayon.

-V —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.203.74 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)