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 edit
In regards to this edit [1], 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 edit
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 edit
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngroutine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- 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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked without any kind of due process; no intelligent decision was involved. I am the victim of a rogue administrator who doesn't agree with sourced information being included in an article
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. You have no right to due process, or indeed any rights, on Wikipedia, which is a private website. Sandstein 06:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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 [2] 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)
Climb It Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Again, my apologies for insulting other users, but it's offensive to be told I am someone that I am not simply because I made this one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=319693633 .... guess what, how many people read the article in question from the BBC website? At least a million? It CLEARLY states that the warmest year in the last 20 years was not 2008, but 1998-- and this is highly relevant to the global warming article. That someone gets permanently banned for adding sourced material to wikipedia is probably not optimal for the Wikipedia itself, which relies on honest edits from many different users. I honestly don't know who scibaby is, but I think it's easier for someone to say I'm a sockpuppet of a banned user than deal a with a newer user adding accurate and sourced information to an article that an administrator doesn't want to see included for no reason other than it doesn't fit what that person wants to believe. I please ask you to reconsider a review of the IP addresses. I have no idea who scibaby is, or where scibaby is, but the chances that we are in the same local area (which you can discover by IP address) is similar. I think it is silly just to say that anyone who disagrees with the global warming status quo is scibaby--the fact is that millions of Americans think the problem is overrated and the suggestion that global warming is an anthropogenic emergency is simply not the truth. See http://green.venturebeat.com/2009/01/28/news-flash-nobody-gives-a-damn-about-global-warming and also http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update, the former being very important. The number of Americans who believe that global warming is caused by humans is around 38% as of October 2009--due to facts available in the media, especially that we are seeing some record cold temperatures and that the warmest year on record in recent times is 1998 despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased since then
Decline reason:
Interesting. Immediately after BozMo describes Scibaby's habits, you demonstrate them to a tee. Not that I really would get anything out of arguing with a sock, but for future reference, simply because a fact has a reliable source attached to it does not automatically mean it gets put on the page. Especially on an issue such as this. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.