Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:34, 20 July 2005

Older talk can be found in archive1.

• • Old talk can be found in .**

i hope i did that right

wanna talk to me directly? IM me. otherwise leave comments here. i blanked the page becasue i had the warning that the page was getting a little long. Gabrielsimon 04:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fair game

Nothing at Misplaced Pages is "fair game". This is not a sporting event, or a hunting expedition. It's a serious project to build a comprehensive encyclopedia of all the world's knowledge. All this fussing over whose Misplaced Pages:rights have been violated is nonsense.

I want to know what articles you plan to improve, Gabriel. And what improvements you plan to make to them. Stop whining, and start planning - like an adult. You can do it. And you must, if you intend to remain a volunteer at this project. Uncle Ed 11:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

for one , i was going to try to put some data on areial wolf hunting in the wolf article, tought as lose as i can get to cod , emotionless facts, it still seems emotional, just becasue of the facts themselves.... im prepping to go to work now, so ill get back to you with more. Gabrielsimon 20:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

missing sun myth

dreamGuy createsd a fork article missing sun motif and deleted the missing sun myth article against consensus and has been reverting my attempts to undo his actions that are against policey, but i have used up all my actions forthe day on that article, i would request assistance for m any intereted parties, if you would. Gabrielsimon 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Gabrielsimon, I did not create a "fork article" - I moved an article to a name that more accurately reflected its contents. When you decided to restore the content to the original name instead of having the article moved (not that it would happen, because the old name is wrong for two different reasons) you created a fork article. Worse than that, the VFD for the fork article clearly says that the fork should be removed and that it should be a redirect to the main article. You trying to restore the contents of the article to that name violates the consensus of the VfD, violates Misplaced Pages policy on forks, and is inherently just a bad move, and one you are clearly only doing to try to undo something I did, based upon your long history of wanting to harass me. You need to give it a rest. Your RfC is backfiring, and you could very easily end up getting into trouble yourself. Just stop taking actions out of spite and try to work with the other editors here instead of doing things your way just to do them your way. DreamGuy 07:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

themove you id was against consensus at the time according tothe talk page. and btw, nothing i do is out of spite, id like to think that i am a more evolved mind then that. i will stop editing pages to change the capitalization of godess now that i understnad, as an example. Gabrielsimon 07:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

as for harassment, i didnt, i simply asked a questiomn, you refused to answer, so i askedt he question again, becasue i really wanted to know what the answer was. i do not think that was harassment, it was never intended as such, butyour welcome to your own interpretations, i zuppose. Gabrielsimon 07:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

rfc - sun motif

what you added to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 might be suitible as a se[parate RFC, to get better results. Gabrielsimon 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but lets wait a while. If DreamGuy doesn't act up, i'll refrain from filing another RfC. --AI 01:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be added to the same RFC. If you add it to a 3rd RFC this will be considered harassment, and be likely to result in arbitration against you, leading to a formal penalty. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

youll also note that its not lily that he wont " act up" its his modus operendii... also it might be good to npote that hes lying, a little higher in this page. Gabrielsimon 01:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have an understanding of how such people operate, an understanding 1,000,000 times more accurate than any pseudoscientific psychologist. Anyway, these spin doctors are very stupid to try their tricks in a medium such as Misplaced Pages where everything is intricately documented. --AI 03:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to listen to me, but I suggest avoiding DreamGuy and not returning his calls. And take a look at the Missing sun motif article, nice redirect :) --AI 03:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Redirect removed and article restored and protected. There is a VFD. Deleting artices involved in a VFD during the vfd is totally forbidden. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

you still shouldnt have hadused the word stupid...

Gabrielsimon 03:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what grounds a VFD is put up for. Anything may be VFD'd for any reason. The purpose is to determine the community consensus on what should be done with the article, not why. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

lillith

is not the title of a God or godess worthey of capitalization? if so, please capitalize it in the Lillith articele, i hace used up all my actions today becasue of a stubborn editor who doesnt see this. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can help us to help you, by including a link to the article. I guess you mean Lillith. When you answer this comment, you will see that I enclosed used two square brackets on each side of the article name. Uncle Ed 14:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i was reallytred when i posted that, id just gotten homoe from work

Gabrielsimon 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"god" vs. "God"

In proper English usage, god is a not a title, it is a noun. As in "Zeus is a god," not "Zeus is a God." The uppercase God is only used when it is a proper noun (or proper name, if you prefer), as in the Judaeo-Christian God, or the pagan Goddess. To to say that a lunar deity is a God or Goddess is incorrect, because there is not such thing as "a God(ess)". It is either "a god(ess)", or "God(ess)" when you are using it as a proper name. As an example, it is permissible to say "God is the name given to the Christian god," or you can say, "The Christian God," (because in this context you are using it in the same you would say, "The Greek Zeus."

As another example, you never say, "He is a God." It is "He is a god," or "He is God." (The latter when referring to the Christian god, since it's the equivalent of saying, "He is Gabriel.")

Similarly, when you are talking of the "underworld" or the "Underworld", you have to distinguish between the use of the word as a noun and as a proper noun. In the case of Gilgamesh, the context of the sentence appears to use it as a noun instead of a proper noun, so lower case is appropriate. Unless Silverberg is actually using the word as the name of the place rather than as a descriptive noun, then Underworld is okay. Otherwise, "the underworld" is correct.

So DreamGuy is correct, and unfortunately, you are not, in this case. --khaosworks 07:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

statistically, it was bound to happen... thanks for helping and explaining it. Gabrielsimon 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabirelsimon, you now have had multiple editors tell you that you were wrong to capitalize Goddess... Why do you still insist upon changing it in the Lilith article? You are wrong, everyone has told you that you are wrong, you admitted you were wrong, yet you are still screwing the article up. What could possess you to do this? Please stop. DreamGuy 16:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

whats beeen made clear is capitalization is only there whentheres a title, so i capitalized Godess Of War. thats a title. Gabrielsimon

Only if it's an actual Sumerian title, as in if the Sumerians went around calling her "Goddess of War" as a name (as in, "Hey, Goddess of War!" as opposed to, "She is the goddess of war") rather than as a descriptive. Otherwise, you're just making it up. --khaosworks 22:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

an example is aries, Greek god Of War, they called him Aries, Goid OF War, simmilarly, it was Inanna, Godess Of War. formal titles etc. Gabrielsimon 22:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's Ares, the Greek of war, or even Ares, Greek god of war. To call him Ares, God of War is to attribute a title to him that the Greeks may or may not have had given him (he may have been their god of war, but did the Greeks title him God of War is what I'm trying to get at). Similarly, Inanna was the Sumerian goddess of love and war, but if her full title wasn't "Inanna, Goddess of Love and War", i.e. the designation was part of her name, then you're not on firm ground --khaosworks 22:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with Khaosworks, I think in Gilgamesh the King "underworld" (or, as I would have it, "Underworld") is being used as the name of a location to which dead souls go that exists in Mesopotamian mythology. I haven't read the stories, though, so I don't know. elvenscout742 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolf

As far as I know I am the only Wikipedian who owns livestock. We have a beef cow-calf operation.

I am of two minds about wolves. I see them occasionally. I appreciate Jim Brandenberg's work as a biologist and photographer, with regard to the wolf. They are beautiful creatures, and objectify wildness and freedom in a certain way.

On the other hand, they are also destructive, and I have sheep farmer friends who have problems with them. Wolves can, do, and have destroyed the livelihood of sheep farmers. They have an expansive range and cannot be fenced out, and the only effective means of control is to kill them. Many sheep farmers believe that wolves become sheep-specific predators in areas where sheep are present, and believe that the extent of this problem has gone unrecognized by government officials and scientists who have an agenda driven by the fantasy of a natural world where humanity is not present.

Wolves are no match for a cow, and in my area though present in small numbers they are not bold enough to try to take a calf away from the herd. Still, I can appreciate the pain and the sleepless nights and broken dreams of sheep farmers, particularly, who suffer the effects of their predation. If we ever lost a calf to one I too would kill any I see by any means possible. As a rule in the livestock business you end up seeing a lot of death, and that is especially true of the herdsmen I know in the sheep business. Some say lambs were put on this earth to find new ways to die. But it breaks the heart of a herdsmen to have to go out and shoot a lamb that's been mortally injured by a wolf; wolves care no more for the pain and suffering of lambs than the farmer cares for the pain and suffering of the wolf. Wolves can and do kill even if they are not hungry, and will often leave a dead carcass behind without eating any of the meat.

My two cents. Balance.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i used to spend a lot of time in the wilderness and i met quie a few wolves ( i had an intersting childhood) none of them ever killed without need, and as for farmers, well scare off a wolf should be easy, you dont have to KILL it. besides, what gives people the right to say, kill off entie populations of wolves just becasue they may lose a few thousand dollars... you sayt yo would slaughter all wolves you saw over the life of one calf? for shame! Gabrielsimon 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all fascinating background material, but remember, we're trying to figure out how to describe aerial hunting of wolves, for an encyclopedia article. U.C. is giving the farmer's perspective. Gabriel, you love wolves. What should the article say? Uncle Ed 04:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

i beleive it should sasy how hunters routinly slaughter them in the name of thier own monetary gain and how other hunters slaughter them becausethey are trying to control the population, when, as a predetory species, wolves are self controlling, as population goes. it should also be noted that wolves themselves , when in packs, never kill except for food, some times, banished, lone wolves do kill for other reasons but that is extremily rare. the words i posted on your talk page aught to be inculded as well, becasue of the simple fact that areal wolf hunting is more or less cheating, for many reasons. i also do not think that just becasue people are prersent in any eco system entitles people to pretend that they are the masters of said eco system. Gabrielsimon 04:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the words i was referring to are : "Hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until, the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range, excecution style." Gabrielsimon 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Humans are not the masters of the world, we are the Guardians of Nature, thus senselewss destruction is a waste of human purpose. Gabrielsimon 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, GS. You're saying wolves hunt in packs?!? In other words, they gang up on other defenseless creatures?? That's terribly unfair. I thought they had more honour than that.

Do you see now why talk about "cheating" or "fairness" opens a whole can of worms when trying to maintain NPOV? Also, dicussion of your idea of humanity's "proper" role in nature is hopelessly POV. Animals (including humans) kill other animals. We're not here to pick sides, we're here to be factual and neutral. Friday 15:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

they take own the weak among the prey, therafore trhey contribute to the natural balance of keeping the prey species strong. humans are apart from the cycle. our place is to protect nature, not to interfere with it. the use of technology such as helicopters to hunt down and exterminate entire communities of wolves at once OIS unfair. becasuse A - wolvvescant fly for one thing and B - humans hunt wolves ourt of fear, and prejudice, wolves hunt to eat. Gabrielsimon 15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. I hope you can see that saying something is unfair is expressing a point of view. Also, your guesses as to the motivations of wolf hunters are speculation and POV also. I see that wolf is still protected, but even once it's not, I would advise you to be cautious. It's great that you're trying to work this out on the talk page though. However other editors may be less inclined to work with you if they believe your goal is POV pushing. Friday 15:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the motivation of wolf hunters i mention is not POV, it is based on rwsearch. as for how fair it is, also research, not opinion. Gabrielsimon 22:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. You are demonstrating a continuing lack of understanding of NPOV and verifiability. If there's research, why not cite a source as I suggested on the talk page? Friday 23:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP the edit warring! Have you learned nothing? The page was protected due to your unilateral editing behavior, which you are now continuing. Did you read the talk page at all? Once again I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Friday 23:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i take it YOU havnt read the talk page. i asked you to stop removing my work , its already as NPOV as its gonna get, wtihout deleting the intforamtion, and it is important. Gabrielsimon 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I offered a compromise, but you were unwilling to budge on a single word you wrote. Please take a moment to assess what you're trying to accomplish here, because it seems like you're working against everyone in this community. - grubber 00:38, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

the comprimise reduced what i put to one word. Gabrielsimon 01:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You're exaggerating; most of what you wrote was still there. I was working to help keep your edit in the article but I'll assume you'd like to work this out on your own. Good luck. - grubber 01:28, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Interesting, Gabriel; I doubt we'll agree. There is a difference between killing wolves for "a few thousand bucks" -- though I myself would have no moral qualms about killing wolves for that kind of money -- and killing wolves for the difference between earning a living and going broke. This is the choice that some farmers face. One or two lambs a night, over the course of a year, easily adds up to that. And the sleepless nights spent watching and waiting. And hoping that the new fence or the latest nonlethal control method will work. They might, until the wolves get hungry. The idea that wolves take only the weak is false. That is, unless you consider an ewe that's lambing to be weak. That's one of their favorite targets. From the farmer's point of view, the wolf is a pest, or at least can be, just one of many obstacles to trying to make a living. Your attitude changes a lot when you see the dead lambs. As for methods, I have never advocated the use of poisons for predator control because there is so much indiscriminant killing as a result, mainly affecting raptor populations. I understand that hunting from aircraft works well. No sport in it to be sure, but that's not the intent; it's business rather than pleasure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

business of humans does not justify elimination of a species. nor does someones livlyhood justify cruelty. wolves simply try to survive. one can not fault them for that. effectivness of an activity that is wrong doesnt justify that activity. as i have said before, humans are not natures masters, humans are the protectors of the balance, and as such have no right to choose what species should live and what species should perish for thier own foolish fears and desies. as guardians of the balance, humans have a lot to learn before they can go back to doing thier job properly. Gabrielsimon 02:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas. -- Psalm 8:4,6-9 (NRSV). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

biblical lies wont convince me. humans have intellect so that they may aid the world, and look what they did. the ramblings of a false god wont convince. those who quote scripture have no opinion of thier own. Gabrielsimon 03:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. - Chief SeattleGabrielsimon 03:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

((stupidity and creulty, some how m,ixed togeather has been removedGabrielsimon 01:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC))). Kurt Weber 23:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for standing up for fairness! Cognition 05:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i try. Gabrielsimon 05:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition's page

If you'd care to join the discussion, it's at User talk:Cognition#User page reverts. Friday 14:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your feelings about wolf hunting

Message for you at User_talk:Ed_Poor#wolf_hunting. Uncle Ed 11:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

On wolf hunting edits

Just so you know, I found this edit particularly un-neutral. I hope you can see why. Even if you don't, I would see it as a personal favor to me if you'd discuss it before reverting it. Friday 21:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

the label that all wolves are destructive is totally false, most are only tryingto survive, hence its a false label, a generealization if you will. Gabrielsimon 23:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You apparently see the word "destructive" as an insult. It was not meant to pass judgement, it was meant to suggest that they destroy things, such as livestock. Gabriel, I really wish you'd ask yourself what you're hoping to accomplish here. You've already demonstrated poor judgement in making edits. You've already been banned multiples times for your edits. Yet, you're continuing to insist on getting only your own way, without compromise. That's not how things work here. Frankly, I'm sick of trying to compromise with you, when you won't budge. I'm pretty sure other editors are having problems with your behavior also. Friday 00:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

SOME are destructive, yes, but not all are, your wording says that all are, and that is unacceptable. can you see why? Gabrielsimon 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's your chance. Try this. Do not talk to Friday anywhere but at talk:wolf hunting. If he posts here, simply ignore it.

And explain why you insist on scare quotes around "justification". Tell him what those scare quotes do to the word. And then suggest an alternative that he can understand and accept, but which does not compromise the integrity of the article. Uncle Ed 00:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

as you wish

Gabrielsimon 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: read the VFD

and see that tis ubn nessessary and it all stems from one users inaprpriate edits. (dreamguy went aganist consensus) Gabrielsimon 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the VfD. I also can see that the VfD is scheduled to be closed later today, and I would prefer to let the process work than have a group of editors warring over this issue while the VfD continues on. This is why I've protected the pages in question.

There is no situation in which an edit war is an appropriate response to anything on Misplaced Pages, including this one. Kelly Martin 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

the entire thing is DreamGuys fault, he changed thigns against consensus. Gabrielsimon 05:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually read the notice on the article Missing sun motif that said

DO NOT CHANGE THIS ARTICLE INTO A REDIRECT DURING THE VFD

?

You may not do this, it violates VFD policy. The article is now locked from editing. ~~~~ 07:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing Sun myth and its VFD

DO NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES DURING A VFD.

This is a serious violation of policy, and if you continue to do it, it will get you blocked from editing. ~~~~ 07:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the VFD is not on grounds that are appropriate, becaue the article was altered without consensus by user DreamGuy, thus making your complaint moot. Gabrielsimon 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• (A) Please learn what moot actually means.
• (B) Anything may be VFD'd for any reason. VFD is a request to the community to decide on the fate of an article. YOU MAY NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES FROM ARTICLES unless the VFD has been formally closed by a closing admin, doing so will get you blocked immediately. ~~~~ 10:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

moot means pointless, doenst it? Gabrielsimon 10:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is one meaning of it, but not in the context you are suggesting. But be that as it may, you do not unilaterally remove VfD notices. I cannot emphasise this enough. Even if you think a VfD notice is in bad faith, you raise it on the VfD discussion page, and do not remove it yourself. Let everyone decide if it is a bad faith nomination - you don't get to assume that kind of authority on your lonesome. --khaosworks 04:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

at the risk of sounding childish, if authority is not for one use, then DreamGuy shioyod getsome kind of punitive reaxction for assuming authority on missing s un myt's name change... he went agsint consensus.( for the record i wont do any such again) Gabrielsimon 04:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Different situation and context entirely. There is a procedure to be followed for VfDs. --khaosworks 04:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why did Jtkiefer initially remove the VfD and redirect the page? Is he the VfD administrator? --AI 10:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No. That was due to the rather unusual nature of the article being VfD'd, as it was a cut and paste operation from Missing sun motif, so he believed that the fork article should not be the subject of a VfD. He was in error as well. --khaosworks 11:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the matter is now settled. I suggest that you abide by the results of the VfD, and refrain from removing VfD notices in the future except when closing a VfD discussion according to the process. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

Welcome back, dear boy. You have reverted my edit to Book of Mormon, but with no explanation. This is not the way to work together with your co-editors. Wiki policy is to always explain your edits. This way we can work out differences as they arise, and you can spare yourself the ire of other editors evident in the talk page entries above. --Blainster 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

its simple really, the deketions seemed un nessessary. from having read the book once, it seemed that the removed items, aside from the link,m fit ., Gabrielsimon 09:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You say it is simple, but while ignoring policy by not summarizing your edits may seem simple to you, it only causes confusion for everyone else. Your reversion deleted three different edits. If you only meant to make one change, do you understand how carelessly reverting all of them might cause someone else to wonder why you did that? Did you merely forget to provide a summary? If so, please try to remember next time. And please take the time to use the diff function to look at the changes so that you can intelligently make the edits that you desire.

Also, your response indicates you "read the book once", so evidently you didn't bother to look up the verses cited. If you had, you would have seen that they do not make the statement that the entry claims they do. That is why they were removed. Thanks. --Blainster 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits to otherkin and vampire

Although many other editors, namely DreamGuy, have complained and nagged you during your tenure during Misplaced Pages, it is my own opinion that you deserve some type of award for your continued work on Misplaced Pages. So here it is:

Thanks, happy editing, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Inanna

I have reverted your change from a redirect to a stub. When you have an expanded article available, please do feel free to replace the redirect with the new article. In the meantime, however, the redirect is more helpful than a stub. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Some friendly advice: the message that you just deleted was a 3RR warning about the wolf article. You should heed those warnings, even if you think they are unfair, given the problems that you have had in the past. Ignoring them will only give ammunition to the people you feel are harrassing you, and could result in you being blocked. If you feel that other editors are being unreasonable, then you should go through the dispute mediation process, rather than getting into revert wars. Ground Zero 20:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

in recent days he kept claoiming id vilated 3rr o my user talk page. so i thought it worth ignoring., good advicce tho. Gabrielsimon 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

By my count, you did violate 3RR on your talk page. However, I was very nice. Instead of reporting you (you'd have probably been banned for several days due to multiple offenses), I brought it up to you personally. However I see that you'd rather your behavior be evaluated through official channels. I'm sure the ever-increasing crowd of editors you've annoyed with your behavior will be glad to know that. Friday 20:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday, your way of intervening is just stirring things up. If you are an admin, please drop this matter. If you are not, then just leave it to the admins, because you're not helping. I'd like you to (1) review Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks and (2) stay away from Gabriel and wolves for a couple of days. If I tell the arbcom I can't handle this, then they will handle this - and they think in terms of 3-month paroles. I'm much easier to deal with.

Everybody, please think about what is best for Misplaced Pages. Uncle Ed 00:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

go ahead, report me. Gabrielsimon 20:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, you better ignore these guys, cool off, and stop ALL reversions. Otherwise, while I go on vacation next week I predict you will be on suspension the entire time. If you care about wolves, you MUST find a way of channeling that passion into neutral writing.

Your homework assignment is to read all of the Misplaced Pages:NPOV article. I can't make you do this, of course - but if you will learn what this policy is about, then you'll be able to edit all the articles you want. Same as me. Uncle Ed 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You-Know-Me

Signing "You-Know-Who" might be a copyvio, but possibly even using the name at all is too. I don't intend to change my signature anytime soon though. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

i just thought it wold be fun... call it a tribute i suppose. Gabrielsimon 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Foolishness

Gabriel, if you keep feeling around, the other admins are going to block your account. I suggest you stick to finding an unbiased way to describe the controversy over wolf hunting. Uncle Ed 00:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

its not particularly easy to describe things coldly if you careabout them.

on another note, any way i could ask yopu mioght get people offf my back if they start buzzing about with some wierdnesS? i never ment any harm ifi i did anything.

Gabrielsimon 00:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's not easy, but sometimes it's the only way. And the way to get people off your back is: (1) Never answer a nasty or wierd comment, and (2) Talk to the people who make good edits. That's what I've always done, and they went and made me an Admin and co-chair of the Mediation Committee. Uncle Ed 00:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)