User talk:DanielDeibler/Archives/ 1

Rollback

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism on my user talk, also, good work on the huggle recent changes patrol, Juliancolton made a good decision. Again, thanks Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage targeted by vandals

I requested protection for your userpage according to the page history, it's had alot of vandals recently. The report is here. Momusufan (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected it indefinitely as there should be no reason for new editors to be editing your usepage, if you want it undone please ask. keep up the good work. Mfield (Oi!) 03:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

You're welcome!!! :) - Fastily (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my user talkpage. Much appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 03:35

re: Thanks

No problem at all :), pleased to have helped. Keep up the vandalism fighting BTW, good job! - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Cheers! Geoff ^{T C} 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a great job, let me add my thanks for reverting vandalism on my page. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A thank you from me too! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're nothing but a turd

April fools! After I saw you reverted vandalism on my page, I looked at your talk page and saw a bunch of people saying "thank you" for doing the same on their pages. So, I felt obliged to say thank you as well. Thank you. PS. The guy who vandalized me just wrote a message on my talk page. Check it out and keep an eye on this situation. Belasted (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

hehe oops >_<

sorry about that, anyway, its april fools, so I just played a joke, lol P.S. I am Dcollins52, just not signed in >_< O_OO_o o_O lol ;D 24.110.2.116 (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait wait back up

How is it vandalism if it's my own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.93.246 (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well atleast I think I did?

I found pages that had been blatantly vandalized through "recent changes", then clicked undo and saved to revert them back to their previous edit. Is that how I should go about it or is there a more efficient/official method?

I'm being completely truthful, I really did. 12.187.93.246 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit of snootiness for an administrator...

I now realize that my attempts to edit it were too slowly executed to be successful. Thanks for immediately doubting me and assuming I'm ironically... talking... about vandalizing that guy's page? What? Calm down, boy, I say. You surely can't get so worked up about things like that. 12.187.93.246 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. DanielDeibler (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Milwaukee Lutheran High School

Hello DanielDeibler. We all make mistakes, but sometimes it helps us not make them again if they are pointed out to us.[1] When rolling back, please always check the history of the article and the content you are saving. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

why the **** did u ban me? JK thanks for warning though. Puto (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

You seem to be confusing vandalism with incivility; they are not the same. Lest you be accused of incivility or making a personal attack yourself, please refactor, or preferably remove, that comment. If you have any complaints about the vast amount of work I have done here as an Administrator, please feel free to raise a request for comment, but making an unsupportable accusation on your userpage is simply inappropriate. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I will point out, though you should already be well aware of this, WP:VAN describes userspace vandalism as "Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)." Your comment on User talk:82.2.217.135 was both an insult and profanity and therefore was userspace vandalism, so I will not be removing my comment as you suggested. As for templating regulars, with 39000 edits, you should know WP:TTR by now, particularly since you claim to have read every essay we have here. Because of your stats, I first attempted to express my concerns to you directly by writing you a personal warning, reminding you of a policy you should already be aware of but had breached (hopefully just an isolated incident that I happened to see). I expressed concern over your other comment by suggesting that you (re)read Wikipedia:What adminship is not#More specifically, hoping to remind you that experience and adminship are not licenses and do not give you any special authority, and that it's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone. The second comment, though more subtle than the first, caused me concern over the attitude you might have about and because of your stats and the fact that the sysop flag is turned on for your account. This concern was increased severely by your response to my initial comment, in which you appear to defend your comments and suggest, with a dog crap metaphor, that you would repeat your actions in the future under similar circumstances, apparently either arguing that the bad faith of the editor was justification for the profane insult you left on his user talk page, or mistakenly believing that I was defending the actions of the editor. Your comment suggested to me that you believe you should be given special treatment because of your stats and sysop flag. Because you were unresponsive to a personalized warning, either because you truly believe you deserve special treatment and that your stats make it acceptable for you to insult users you feel are deserving of it, or because you did not understand you were being warned, I replied to your comment and ceased giving you special treatment, adding a relevant template message (Template:Uw-npa1, level 1 warning for personal attacks) you would be familiar with to make it patently clear that you were being warned for a policy violation. Please remember that WP:VAN is not merely a guideline or essay. It is a non-negotiable English Wikipedia policy and no special conditions make you immune to it. DanielDeibler (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi. I saw that you requested a 3O on User talk:Rodhullandemu#Concerned. I've removed it because I don't really think there's much that a third opinion can do. The message that the admin left may have been inappropriate, but is it your fight to fight? If you really think it is, then take it up somewhere else. Maybe WP:AN, maybe WP:WQA. Either way, 3O isn't really the best place for it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... He may be a Dick but his name is not Dick

I changed all the incorrect references in Michael Savage's page where someone had changed his last name from Weiner to Dick... and now someone sends me a message telling me its defacement. Hey, I'm the one who fixed it so get off my back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.0.140.154 (talk • contribs)

Verified, the corrections at Michael Savage were correct, though no edit summary was given. NJGW (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Yes, NJGW, An edit summary would have been helpful in this case, but more helpful would have been for me to make sure the edit was incorrect before reverting it. DanielDeibler (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. It's appreciated! d99figge 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Name-dropping

Can we do something about the IP user who has been vandalising the Name-dropping article for the past 28 months? They've just acted innocent on my talk page: [User_talk:Fences_and_windows#Your_edits_on_Name-dropping]. Would a request at WP:ANI help? I like your "guide to vandalism" by the way! Fences and windows (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for reviews, and I put my case. Moving it to the talk page could easily give the impression that you are attempting to stifle my response; for one thing, the chronology becomes more obscure. If you are trying to be fair to me, that is not yet apparent. Should anyone come across your page, it might be assumed that I have nothing to say on the matter; that is incorrect. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for reviews of the investigation itself. Please read the box at the top of the page. Please be more careful in the future when reverting edits. Anyone looking for your comments would expect to find them on the discussion page, which is where they belong, and where they have been moved to. If you're worried about the chronology, I can put it where it belongs, but that would bury it in the middle of the page somewhere, making it less noticeable, which is precisely what you're arguing against doing. For now, it's in it's own section in the most noticeable part of the discussion page, the bottom. I expect any interested people to understand how to read timestamps, but if you're concerned about it, add a note explaining it, or just move it up where it chronologically belongs. Thanks. --DanielDeibler (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly were you asking for reviews of, then? In my country, an accused is expected, and even required, to provide some explanation; that's part of due process. Nobody is going to compare the main page with the talk page to see who said what, and when. Suffice it to say that I think that this investigation (and I've been involved in a fair few) has to go somewhere, and very rapidly indeed. No court of competent jurisdiction would accept this vacillation and uncertainty on your part, let alone your open-to-interpretation removal of my comments here. At the moment it seems that you're just gathering dirt, which is not permitted by WP:UPNOT, #10, with no clear object in mind. There's only one word for that, given the way you've stopped anything other than this topic- poisonous. Where's the balance? Non-existent, thus far. Go back over 21 months of some 42000 edits, please, and select some where I've help editors in good faith. Meanwhile, kindly stop gathering mud in the hope that some might stick. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the box at the top of the investigation page. Nobody expects anyone to compare the main page with the talk page. That is why the investigation is on the main page, and discussion of the investigation is on the discussion page. What vacillation and uncertainty are you referring to? I didn't remove your comments. I moved them to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. By the way, please refrain from posting commentary on the investigation page. Commentary belongs on the talk page. You're free to believe what you wish. The investigation is balanced to begin with. Edits are not reviewed with any bias, but rather with a neutral, objective eye. If you wish to add your own review of an edit, or wish to request that an edit be reviewed, add it in the designated "Requests for review" section, which I suppose needs renaming and/or a concise description within it, and if it is relevant, it will be incorporated in the investigation, and if not, archived, relocated or removed depending on the situation. I'm not questioning your contribution history or edit count. You've been a valuable contributor to the English Wikipedia project. That's not being investigated and isn't being questioned. It would be pointless to review edits that are obviously helpful and appropriate when investigating someone's conduct. You claim to be concerned with the timeframe of the investigation, but at the same time suggest I review additional, benign edits as well, which would greatly increase the duration of the investigation. You spend so much time questioning this investigation and claiming it is some evil plot to defame you and yet not once have you addressed its content. If you spent a fraction of that time considering the virtue of the edits being reviewed in the investigation and honestly assessing your conduct, you could likely render the entire investigation pointless. The reason the investigation exists is that you responded to a warning regarding your conduct by indicating you thought your vandalism was acceptable due to your edit count and sysop flag, rather than addressing your conduct, the same behavior you continue to exhibit now. --DanielDeibler (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Either get on with it, or don't. I did address the content in general terms, but you shuffled it off to a Talk page. Thanks. Please make up your mind whether you're giving me a fair analysis or not. So far, that isn't apparent. The time you spent posting the above could have been spent on looking into your edits for review, but it wasn't, judging by your contribution history. Now, the assumption of good faith has its limits, but you seem to be being a netcop here with much bluster but very little apparent commitment, and I need to know where you stand on this. A prettily-formatted page is all very well, but thus far is lacking in the meat department. Meanwhile, your concentration on me could reasonably be interpreted as Wikistalking unless and until you focus on (a) a process and (b) moving towards that. Thus far, I see little evidence of either. "Digging the dirt" is inimical to a rational analysis, and your shortcomings in this respect should be obvious to all. One last time; commit or don't. {{db-author}} is your way of escaping the increasing criticism coming your way, and would at least allow you to retain some credibility as an editor here. Rodhullandemu 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Your continued questions and accusations here are wasting a great deal of time that could be spent working on the investigation. You've managed to slow it down even more than LessHeard. --DanielDeibler (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Just: No. You are not obligated to reply in the slightest. It is no fault of mine that you are apparently unable to manage your time here. Just get on with it, or don't, and that's the bottom line. Rodhullandemu 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add this: you didn't put {{NOINDEX}} on these pages, so they are now indexed by Google. As an admin, one gathers enemies, whether deserved or not, but to so negligently fail to keep this within Wikipedia doesn't help one iota. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Progress

I see in the last 24 hours you've added one more review to this investigation and have sixteen queued. Is this analysis going to take another sixteen days to complete if this rate is sustained? If so, the MFD is due to be closed on Friday and you might find you will run out of time. When I did my research in Cardiff in 1986, I had limited access to Court records but by working from 9am to 7pm daily, managed to fit it all in, and without the luxury of vacations. Rodhullandemu 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Result of the Mfd

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation_of_Rodhullandemu has been closed. The result: you have one week to either initiate a dispute resolution process or move the information off-wiki. After one week, if no dispute resolution process has started, the page will be deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's now been six days since the Mfd, and I notice you haven't worked on the page at all. May I take that as an indication that you do not intend to start dispute resolution?--Aervanath (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Genbukan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genbukan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genbukan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)