User talk:DanielDeibler

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks

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

Thank you

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

Thanks

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

Thanks for watching my back!

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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. --Rodhull andemu 16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]