User talk:Gabrielsimon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:57, 7 July 2005 editGabrielsimon (talk \| contribs)2,118 edits →3RR violation on Wolf ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:09, 16 November 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,824 edits Inanna listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper)
(540 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Now editing as ]. --] 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
	''Old talk can be found in ].''
	----

			if your here, then why not look at the poetry section on my user page and leave some comments about it?
	wanna talk to me directly? IM me. otherwise leave comments here. i blanked the page becasue i had the warning that hte page was getting a lottle long.

			''Old talk can be found in:
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]''

			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.
	] 04:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)		] 04:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			==Gabrielsimon is now using the name ]==
	:You can always archive old talk (if you care to archive it) by copying the wikitext into a new page like ] or something like that. Subpages are great.  — ] \| ] 07:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
			Gabriel has switched names. If you are looking for him, go there. ] 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


			==.==





			== Hmm ==

			You appear to be the only editor currently insisting on removing "God" from ]. Once again, you had agreed to one edit a day when there is conflict. Once again, you have gone back on your word quite quickly. If you don't want to be held to one edit a day, why do you keep agreeing to it? ] 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			i only undid what sam spade did. any hoo i beleive that Divine spirit encomapssres the cncept of god, thus eliminating th need to say god.
			] 08:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Yes, you did undo what Sam Spade did. You made a change. He didn't like it, so he edited it. You then immediately reverted it back. Do you see that this is exactly what you agreed to stop doing? More importantly, do you see why this is not a good way for editors to resolve disagreements? ] 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			i had already explained things on the talk page and he had a history of reverting anything other then his perfectioon.
			] 15:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			:You're edit warring again. I'm not trying to say you're right or wrong, but you're clearly not doing what you said you'd do. ] 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			hes beoing a dletionist, and yes, im sorry i did that, but its not like its unwarrented to try to get someone to stop censoring everything... sigh, i should be more vcarefull.
			] 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
			:Why did you revert the compromise version? That seems quite one-sided. ] 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			im srry, i wasnt aware of a comprimise version, what page are we talking about?
			] 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:]. os the edit I mean. You still appear to be the only one who's currently insisting on removing ], and you're IMO editing by brute force. ] 02:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			"divine spirit" is a concept that overlaps ?god" and is more pervasive throught the world, i thought that having both was like a skipping record.
			] 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Heading changes ==

			Hey Gabriel; welcome back. Can I quickly suggest that it's best not to change the headings of discussions on talk pages, as they're likely to be linked to directly, as we discussed before. If you have something to say, it's best to make a comment in the discussion saying what you want to. ] 07:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			==3rrisms==

			the way people keep using it on me seems rather like a penatly to me, rather hen something to diffuse conflict. ] 09:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			:I'm not familliar enough with your case to comment; the 3RR cases I handle are of an immediate nature. ] 09:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			=== dammning evidance of a very stubborn mibnd===
			this diff might be it, oh, and nice fractals! ] 10:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Glad you like, I'm quite fond of ]. I have reverted his changes, thanks for the notice. ] 10:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			Do not move my words around so it looks like I am replying to something other than what I actually replied to.... changing the context of someone else's words is highly abusive, as is changing the actual words themselves. If you don't like them, remove them all, but don't change them, as you do not have the right to do that. ] 11:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

			its called chronological order.
			] 15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Here's the feedback you seek... ==

			I see your post a few minutes ago on my page: ''"i actyually have qa dot com... www.gabrielsimon.com''

			''please tell me what you think :)"''

			FEEDBACK: The formatting is excellent, with links to categories both on the side (vertically) and along the top (horizontally), however, only the horizontal lines on top show "sub-categories" when you mouse over them, or at least "new issues" has subcategories. Wait a second: I missed something: The vertical column ''already'' has the links sub-divided. OK, that's good so far.

			You have a section where people can both sign in ''and'' post comments. Good also. However, you're the only one posting, and also you might want to look at ''my'' pages for ideas on content. Wait - oh, I see under "news" that ''others'' post also. Good, however, there are '''two''' sub-links here: "User Items" ''and'' "latest news." You don't have them sub-divided so that you see the links as "sub-categories" like you do in the "new issues" link above. Might wanna reformat that for your readers.

			Also, on content, while I'm not an anime fan, I don't worry about that -yet, your page is low on content. Also, it is low on ''categories'' for content. Check out my pages for example: On "categories," I delve into "legal," "health," "political," and "religious" issues. PLUS, the ''amount'' of content is staggering. I don't know if it's wise to spend that much time online, but you can get to all my personal pages by going to my "wiki" user page.

			I'd appreciate feedback.

			OH! One more thing -how did you make a table in my page without any special language? I see that part of your comments were in a rectangular box -but, how'd you do that? Thx,--] 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			its an automated process to select a modual like that with PHP servers... my sites jsut starting, but thankls! ill go take a look when i get some time.
			] 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			*:<font color=000099>Nevermind about the box - I figured that out. However, my answer is above, and the rest of it looks ok.--] 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)</font>

			== NPOV ==

			Pssst. You're not being very neutral on ]. ] 01:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			i thought it was, see, since not all westerners think that therianthropy is a mental illness, i inseted the some part, and since its rally not fair to call it strange, i removed that, the issue isnt really controversial, just diofficult.... oh , and then theres the fact that the bulk of westerners havnt reallty read much on this subject, so uninformed seems to fit.
			] 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Reverted edit ==

			Gabriel, I reverted just now. I want you to try to understand that you can't just remove people's comments, even when they annoy you, even when you disagree. Much of the RfC concerns this very same sort of behavior. You are welcome to respond to, but not remove, comments that you disagree with. ] ] 02:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

			i apologize, but he seems to contantly try to find ways to get me blocked, its getting tedious to have to tolerate his vendetta.
	i dont actually know how to do that, but if you want to, feel free. thanks tho!
	] 08:55, 16 ~~Jun~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 02:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:That's much better! I know it's hard to leave comments in place when you strongly disagree, but it's SO much better to comment on them, rather than just removing them. ] ] 02:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
	:I clicked through to that link to get an edit page, then went back to the last version of this page before you blanked it and opened the edit page. Then I just copy-n-pasted the old edit text into the new "archive1" page. I finished by adding a link to this page so it can be easily found.  — ] \| ] 18:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

			thanks you . ill try this tact more often.
			] 02:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==protecting==
	thanks!
			pages thatr DreamGuy stubbornly refuses to listen are pages where he creates turmoil and editr wars, so i have protected them, until he learns to listen, i apologize if im not supposed to.
	] 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			] 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
			:Apology accepted. :) You are not permitted to do that, only ] are. ] 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			::Gabriel, I've protected ] and ], but not ] as the situation doesn't seem quite bad enough there, and please don't take this as the cue to make it bad enough. ;-) In future, if you need page protection, put a note on an admin's page or on ]. Cheers, ] ] 02:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
	== ] ==
			okee dokeee.
	I did not revert your edit, only moved it to the talk page for discussion. This article is very long and is often expanded quite casually. Many of the issues these editors bring up have been discussed and resolved on the talk page, and then information has been added to the article. Your edit seems to be on a unique subject and would probably benefit from discussion. I myself have a number of questions about your statement, and would like to see you expand and clarify your opinion. I believe others who frequent the page will have questions too. Citing sources and weeding out simple opinion on a religious subject is important in maintaining NPOV, as per Misplaced Pages protocol. So, thank you for your interest in Joseph Smith, and please feel free to use the talk page. Peace. ] 00:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			] 02:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:The same applies to your RfC, by the way. Just adding the <nowiki>{{protected}}</nowiki> template doesn't actually protect a page. You need to go through ] or otherwise convince an admin it's necessary. ] 07:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	==Quasi-vandalism==
	Just noting your contribution to ]...please be careful in the future. Thanks ~ ] 04:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	have removed comments from an anon user who is likly not being as frinedly as possible.

			i was hoping to make him stop deleting what took me a half hour to put there. he does this kind of stuff a lot, and its really starting to get on my nerves.
	Hi. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Please see ]. ] 14:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
			] 07:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			===RE: RfC===
	Hello Gab, you have been very active today editing. Religious topics when treated without respect can cause pretty hard feelings between fellow editors. Your comments might best be first addressed on the respective talk pages. I would urge you to be thoughtful and respectful, but continue to ask your questions. In reading the archives you will also gain some knowledge about the rather lengthy discussions in the past. I hope to continue to see your edits. Best of luck! ] 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			DreamGuiykeepstrying to delete counterevidance i post, so i placed a the protectedstatus on the RFCpageabpiut me, i know its not right to do, but how else am i supposed to defend myself with hisconstant deletions? please assist me in keeping it protected. i canpromimse not to doanything that could be added to it while its there. ] 07:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	==Major Changes==
	Hello Gabe, my reversion was not a reflection of your point of view; only that many of your points have already been made in the past and have been throughly discussed. The current article is the reflection of a high degree of give and take. However, before making further changes I would advise the following: state your concerns on the Talk page (you may find ready answers from people), look for areas in the article that most closely relate to your comments and make them there, and lastly, attempt to make coherent points that are well thought out.
	Many of your edits could have been easily answered on the talk page had you made them there first. Please don't give up making edits; a reversion, in this instance, is a request for conversation and is not a personal attack. Continue to be patient with those of us who have been working on this article for many months and some for years. ] 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			:That's okay, just don't place that protection tag on it again — you didn't actually protect it, only admins are able to do that, and the tag is for convinience (for example, I protected a page today without finding a need to employ that tag). *** I am afraid I will presently not be able to spare the time to assist you in this dispute, sorry. You may wish to ask another admin, or list a request at ]. Goodluck! ] 08:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	Gabe, I went back to the article and reread it again. Your comments might more appropriately placed in the Alternative thoughts regarding the origins fo the Book fo Mormon. I think you will find similar thoughts to your comments there. You may just want to edit those comments. I would encourage you to enter a new topic in the article that addresses Book of Mormon prophecy at a place you think is appropriate. Some of these articles can be long, but get the gist of entire article and then edit. Good luck. ] 01:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			==== amaz9ingly rudenesses====
	== ] and ] ==

			People at My RFC drovea newbie away topday. that being Ketrovin i dontthink thats right. dreamGuy was expecially rude to him, everyone thought he was me, which isnt the case, i am me, as it were. check out the talk page on Religion and schizotypy to see where the cincher seemed to come from. Gabrielsimon 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	Gabe, regarding the "vampire lifestyle" article; please see the ]; you may know these people personally (which I think you implied in a comment on that talk page), but that's not good enough as a source. Nor, come to that, is my personal experience of anything: both count as "original research". Where there is significant controversy, we should both be prepared to document our presentation of various points of view with ''verifiable third party cites''. Whilst our viewpoints clearly differ, I look forward to working with you in the spirit of ] to improve the article. -- ] 00:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

			:I still lack the time to study and involve myself in this dispute, sorry. I hope it works out and that it gets resolved soon. Goodluck! ] 20:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
	== Welcome ==
	Hi, Gabriel. I welcome you heartily to the Misplaced Pages community, and I hope you stay long and make many great contributions. It is very important to keep in mind as you go about editing that the quality of Misplaced Pages is in your hands. As Smokey the Bear might say, ''"Only you can prevent encyclopedia entropy."''
	* Check your grammar and spelling before you hit the Submit button.
	* Read an article and consider carefully how it is organized before contributing new material.
	* Listen to other editors.
	* Get up to speed on community etiquette by visiting the ] page and assisting other editors to resolve their differences.
	Thanks for your help. ] 20:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

			==Welcome==
			Thank you. I hope to be of help. ]


			enjoy your stay!
	== Reverting ==
			] 05:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	Hi, Gabriel. Just a note to let you know you ] any article more than three times each day. If you do, you get blocked from contributing. If you have trouble with an editor or a group of editors who won't let you make quality contributions, what you have to do is get help from other people to make your case, and discuss the issue on article talk pages. ] 23:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

			==Please stop changing links in the evidence section of your RfC==
	Hello Gabe, You have been active again and your edits are improving. Maybe a better understanding of Mormon history is appropriate. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates. He used an instrument called the Urim & Thummim to assist in the translation. You might be familiar with these sacred oracles worn by Jewish priests in the Old Testament. If you would like references, please let me know and I would be happy to send them to you. Wiki is not a place for arguments, but a place for knowledgable people to assist others in learning. Although you are obviously interested in Mormonism, I am beginning to wonder if you have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. Feel comfortable in asking questions or read some of the sites mentioned on each of the articles that you have editied; both pro and con. Some of them are excellent. ] 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			I really don't understand what you're trying to do right now in the evidence section of your RfC, but your edits are deleting or mixing up the links there. Please stop for a moment and explain what you're doing so others can perhaps tell you how to do it without breaking things. ] 07:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	Gabe, Some of us can get a little brash when edits are made and requests for discussion is ignored. Please go back to the JS and P page and present your case on the talk page. You are better than what you are presenting to the community. You have a point of view, but you need to defend your position. Simply making edits and then not explaining yourself does not help.
	Also, forgive comments from others regarding your spelling and grammer. I would recommend writing your comments first in Word or some other word processing program, doing a spell check, and then copying it into Wiki. You will find more success and others will not be put off by mis-spellings and will need to confront your position. I hope that helps. ] 29 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

			i only changed that becasue its a link thats only one before , in the history that clearly shows that the complaint is totdally bull plop.
			pleaes pleave it in, im tryingto establish the point that Dreamguy complains to much
			] 07:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			The link you're putting in there ''doesn't'' show the same objection. The original link was to a comment you removed from your RfC, but the link you're replacing it with is a comment you removed from talk:therianthropy that was already mentioned in the previous evidence item. ] 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	i thought that removing the lkawyer esque speak about the meaning of words seemed aprropriate, as it is the stuff liars hide behond, my othr edits seem to be postiive enough for the articles merits, yer that MrWhipple fellow seems to be belligerant in how he wishes to remove what i say. i suspect religous zeal. would so,meone please revert it to whzt i put, please?
	] 29 June 2005 18:34 (UTC)

			its tjhe same cpmplaint.
			] 07:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			It is two different instances of you deleting stuff. One was a comment from talk:therianthropy, and the other was a piece of evidence from your RfC. The fact that you are deleting stuff in multiple different places is quite relevant as evidence. The fact that you keep on doing this even now after being repeatedly told not to is probably also going to be a piece of evidence. Please stop deleting evidence from your RfC! ] 07:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	==3 Revert Rule==
	You have broken the three revert rule, and unfortunately as a result you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for 24 hours. Please use this time to reflect on your actions - the truth or falsity of the information is a secondary issue to how disruptive your actions are (not to mention taking such things from a book on witchcraft would likely be a biased source). I would suggest that you take the time out and thereafter discuss it in ] with the rest of the community as to why your edit should be placed in, assuming that you haven't already alienated them. --] June 30, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

			,look athte origional link, the one i havnt touched, its clear that i removed only unsigned comments. and thats the point.
	:Interesting. You have been for the same thing three times now. Once by Bishonen, once by khaosworks, and now once by me. I've since unblocked you (bishonen's block expires in....well, about now). Your fellow soldier in the revert war, ], was not blocked so his 1 day blocking starts now.
			] 07:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			That's not the link that you were removing, though. You were removing this link which shows you deleting this link from the RfC's evidence section. You were replacing it with a link to something completely different, a duplicate of a link that was already in the RfC's evidence section elsewhere.
	:In the future, I recommend that you consider this an electric fence and do not cross it. It disrupts wikipedia and solves nothing. Take differences to the talk page. ] June 30, 2005 20:19 (UTC)
			By the way, it is still wrong to remove comments even if they ''are'' "unsigned". If the lack of signature is a problem then you should have just signed it for DreamGuy and moved on. ] 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			wht the hell? when dud that happen? that s it, im changing , password.
	==Curious==
			] 08:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	I noticed the little spat of reverts on the GWB article, and for the life of me I can't tell any difference between them. Am I just missing something, or is the new wikiware still not sorted out? You can hit my IP to answer, or answer here, I'll check both. Thanks. -bro ] 30 June 2005 03:13 (UTC)

			When did what happen? ] 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	Ah, I think I see, just the edit conflict thing, looks like a bunch of people were trying to revert the same vandalism and it just looked in the history like reverting each other. Feel free to delete this. -bro ] 30 June 2005 03:15 (UTC)

			thus is gonnas ound reallystupid but i dont remember thisentire sectiono fmy talk page. andsincewhen do i spell that well?
	== edit summaries ==
			] 08:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			There are like fivecomputerssin this house and the otherp eople knowme well enough to guess my passcodes. Soi just changedmy passwoerd, pehraps nopw nothingwill go wreong
	Do not use misleading edit summaries; for example, characterizing the addition of questionable content as "" is a misleading edit summary. If you persist in doing this, you may be blocked. ] July 1, 2005 02:07 (UTC)
			] 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Are you saying that someone else was using your account to delete those links from the evidence section of your RfC and engage me in debate about it here on your user talk page? ] 08:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	i removed the ape thing, and i undid the NON questionable ACTUAL quote. quoit being a baby.
	] 1 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

			== Unsigned comments ==
	:Someone else removed the "ape" thing. The only thing you did was add back a questionable quote, which in NO case amounts to "reverting vandalism". You should never revert vandalism and add additional unrelated content in the same edit, or if you do you should be very clear that you are doing so in the edit summary. In general, any edit with an edit summary that describes it as a "revert" that is not, in fact, an actual revert, is misleading. ] July 1, 2005 02:12 (UTC)

			Hey, Gabriel. Just a quick hint: you could save yourself a lot of trouble if, rather than deleting unsigned comments, you looked up the signature details in the article history and added them to the comment yourself. Just check for who posted the comment and when, and tag something like (Unsigned comment posted by <nowiki>]</nowiki> at 08:53, August 4 2005) on to the comment to sign it.
			(I see Bryan has already pointed this out. :) I'll still leave the comment, though, as it has instructions for doing it.) ] 08:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

	when i began editing the ape thing was still there, so as far as i knew i was removing it. EXCUUUSe me if someone beat me to it, gee3ze, calm the heck down.
	] 1 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

			==agrravating cicrumstance==

			just askeduy whoalso liveshere,andhejust laughedat me and told mehesbeen boingm,efor a whiletimight... i apologize forany disruptiveactiity this has vasued. i have just changed,my password(sorlike athirdtime to be sure)
	==]==
			] 08:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:I'm not sure how to respond to that, without getting further involved. I have'nt been adversely affected, at any rate. ] 08:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	I am urging you to please not reinsert that quote until this can be figured out on the talk page, otherwise this could very easily become a revert war since other users will probably remove the quote on sight. ] July 1, 2005 02:41 (UTC)

			Gabriel, fair warning: removing other people's comments, especially comments of those with whom you are in dispute, is disruptive. If you do not stop this, you ''will'' be blocked for disruption. ] <small>]</small> 09:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	seems fair.
	] 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

			fairs fair. ill be on my toes.
	== Bush protected ==
			] 09:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Problems==
	The Bush page is protected now. Please do not edit it until the problems have been resolved on the Talk page. Thanks. ] \| ] 1 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
			Gabriel, thanks for your note. I know you're trying not to be a problem editor, but you must try even harder, and the way to do that is very simple: (1) You have to stick to our rules, no matter how frustrated you get, and (2) You have to accept that you won't always get your own way. In practical terms, this means you must stop reverting so much, you can't put protection tags on pages, you can't delete posts from talk pages just because you don't like them, and you mustn't resort to personal attacks even if you're attacked yourself. The reverting is the worst problem and it really does have to stop, because you'll find yourself banned if it doesn't — not just blocked by an admin, but banned entirely. If you feel you're being reverted unreasonably, ask another editor for help. Don't just keep reverting. I ''know'' it's frustrating, but hey, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Being permanently frustrated is part of the experience. ]. Check your e-mail by the way. I sent you something. ] ] 09:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


			as it issaid in olden days " i hear and i obay" im a bit of an idiot in that if someone doesnt spell it out i dont always get the point)
	the procsdure is as folows - discuss, then delete, so leave it be as i have put it, okay??
	] 1 ~~July~~ ~~2005~~ ~~03:02~~ (UTC)		] 09:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Slim, I don't think Gabriel is likely to get a permanent ban as long as he's willing to listen to an experienced Admin (like you or me).
	: Look, I don't like the 3RR, but please discuss the issue on the Talk page, or you're going to have to be blocked for a short period of time. OK? Thanks. ] \| ] 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

			:Gabriel, you managed to avoid suspension for the entire time I was on vacation. Whatever you did then, keep doing it! We shouldn't have to block your account to get you to follow Misplaced Pages policy. (Or should I just block you for 6 hours, everytime you mess up?) ] 16:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
	the procedure as outlined in the rules is as i described abocve, i folow this, aside from delaing with vandalism, no one else seems to do this, why is that?
	] 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

			sorry. yeah, that probly is a fair way of doing things.
	: Breaking the 3RR twice in 3 days...you need to understand this rule better. A disagreement between you and other others is not vandalism. ] July 1, 2005 03:15 (UTC)
			] 09:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	== ~~Edits~~ ==		== why?==
			why did you reert my edit to the steve jobs article? what i wrote is true.
			] 11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
			:Yes, it is true, but it is not interesting in the grand scheme of things. We should avoid self-references in Misplaced Pages, and in articles we should regard Misplaced Pages just as any other website (however difficult it is to maintain that neutrality). Also, making references to "his latest meeting" in an encyclopedia that is likely to exist for hundreds of years is not useful. The question we have to ask ourselves in this case is whether we would have included "Steve Jobs said at WWDC 2005 that britannica.com is one of his favorite websites.". I'm sorry for reverting without a comment. — ] 12:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			s'ok, but i still think it might be perbnatnat,becasue how often doesa billionaire software moguel wih so much to do take the time o tlel an auditorium full of software developers that wikipedia isa good thing... ill even insert the date.,,,,
	Look Gabrielsimon, I'm not picking on you personally, only the edits. The Misplaced Pages will only be useful and accurate if credible sources are cited, otherwise the NPOV concept won't work. So that's why for articles as central to current events like ] and ] are going to be scrutinized even more carefully. If I put in positive words about "W" without supporting proof, they would be stricken as well. So just make sure to cite good sources - reputable papers, credible gures, verifiable facts. Editorials and opinions have only so much use in an NPOV encyclopedia. Cheers, ] \| ] 1 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
			] 12:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
			:I was there. I know the date. I know what he said. I also know that Jobs has endorsed a wide variety of products in the past. This one was not special in any way. For example, in the same part of his WWDC keynote he endorsed Business Week just as much as Misplaced Pages. — ] 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			:It's not really relevant to the article on Steve Jobs, but it might be relevant to the article on ] itself. ] 12:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
	== Discussion ==
			::Yes, more-so at least. Still, I believe it will be extremely parenthetical in the history of Misplaced Pages in five years... — ] 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
			Such information may be at home in one of the articles listed here: ] ] 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==DreamGuy==
	Please see: ]
			What exactly is this guy's problem? ]

			m hes a very rude person to begin with, if his edits and attitude trowards, well, everyone, is to be any indication. he has a vendetta againstm e and seemsto be trying to get me blocked. or possibly banned. i dont bleeive his edits can be taken in good faith.
	: As mentioned before, cite some sources - experts, books, whatever. That will provide a good starting point for discussion as to whether this is a substantiated claim. ] \| ] 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
			] 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==RFC stuff==
	== Offensive edits? (reposted after deletion) ==
			''"DreamGuiykeepstrying to delete counterevidance i post,"'' The RFC form is broken into three basic sections: the people who are involved with the dispute and say someone else is the cause of the problem, the "response" from that person, and "outside views" from people who weren't involved with the dispute but wish to weigh in on the situation. If an RFC is about your behaviour, then you should really only post stuff inside the "response" section. If you want to reply to specific points in the evidence section, then you can either copy/past the list of evidence into your response section and reply there, or simply call out numbers referencing the numeric list of evidence and post a reply. ] 14:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Slow down! ==
	Hi,
	you appear to have removed my comments here. I'll repost them for your convenience.

			Remember, we're not in a race. If it bugs you to have an article wrong (in your opinion) for a few minutes, take a break from that article and come back to it later. Specifically, I'm referring to . Waiting 7 minutes for an explanation before reverting back probably isn't long enough. That said, I see you stopped reverting once the explanation was brought to your attention. This is a Good Thing. As I said before, I can see that you're making some effort to play nice here. However, not every editor is going to look upon your actions with such a degree of good faith. You can never satisfy ALL your critics, but if you're running afoul of handfuls of reasonable editors, this indicates a problem in your editing behavior. ] 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	I don't think it's that people are offended by your edits, per se. It's that many of your edits are disruptive to wikipedia. There is a pattern of your edits being reverted; this is probably for good reason. You should pay attention to the comments people are leaving you, stop breaking the rules, and try to learn to make good edits. ] 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

			sorry sabout that, got a little antzy...
	== Re: sources ==
			] 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Arbitration Committee case opening ==
	Hi, instead of putting sources/citations into the edit summaries, why not put it into the article itself so people can weigh how valid they are? ] \| ] 3 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)

			] has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to ]. Thank you. -- ] ] 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	==Magizine/magazine==
	I think you should check your last edit where you changed the spelling "magazine" back to "magizine", which is incorrect. The URL is also . Spelled with "magizine" it does not work. --]\|] 5 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

			Id like editors such as Ed Poor to be my defence, if my RFC is any ijndication, ii suck at being my owen attorney.
	==Wolf==
			] 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			It doesn't work like that. There is only prosecution and judgement. But you can ask for assistance from ] to provide counter evidence or explanations. ] ( ] \| ] \| ] ) 21:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	To say is actually a moral value judgment, and anyway, whether shot from a hellicopter or killed by one "diabolic creation" or another, the Wolves don't stand a chance, and it never is fair, because Wolves don't have instruments of death. ] 6 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

			== Congratulations ==

			Congratulations on your 2,000th edit. (see here: ]) ] ] ] 15:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	though if the ersn was on foot the wolf could get away.. chasing a wolf with a he;licopter so that its too tired to move, then walking up to it and shooting it is brutal, and horrendous/
	] 6 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

			Thanks! hope everthings all ] !
	I did not know the procedure involved exhuasting the Wolves first (!). Why would they do that? That is not humane, if they make the wolves exhaust themsleves due to fear of the hellicopter (which is a very terrifying thing, after all). Do you know much about this practice. If you bring ], we can integrate that into the article. Disturbing. ] 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)
			] 19:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


			== since==
	http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/810567891?ltl=1120621476

			since i hae being told what to do, and i have arbitration agsint me ight now, hows this for a c omprimiose, i dont get banned, but ill go away for, say, hows two weeks sound? hen ill give things another go?
	that ones a bit biased, but its a starting point...
	] 6 ~~July~~ ~~2005~~ ~~03:53~~ (UTC)		] 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

	~~Yeah~~, ~~good~~ ~~start;~~ ~~14,000+~~ ~~signatories~~ to ~~the~~ ~~petition~~, ~~that~~ ~~isn't~~ ~~insiginificant~~. ] 6 ~~July~~ 2005 ~~03:59~~ (UTC)		:FWIW, (some of) the people "telling you what to do" are trying to help, not trying to annoy. ] 22:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			i meant it in this sense " i hate being pounished byu other peoplew , so i think ill do it myself.
	==deleted comments with no usefull wording=
			] 22:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			deleted Dreamguys comments AGAIn, althoug you have already ruined wikipedia for yet another newb.
	whoever adds this now deleted section sould pay attention.
	] 6 ~~July~~ ~~2005~~ ~~04:06~~ (UTC)		] 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Not a newb, it was you on another account, please stop lying. ] 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
	Sigh. You're making a revert war on your own talk page. I'm no longer able to assume good faith on your part. I give up. ] 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

			interrestingly, Dreamguy <s>keeps pissing off so many people and editors his talk page has been locked. and he still wont be nice to anyone</s>.
	its MY talk pagew. i have the right to make things go away if i do not want to see them on MY talk page.
	] 6 ~~July~~ ~~2005~~ ~~04:32~~ (UTC)		] 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			::Not true, and not polite. He was nice to me today. And please read my comment way below. ] 14:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
	== Stop editing my user page ==

			:No, sorry... my talk page is not locked. My user page is locked because that sockpuppet of a previously banned user who i helped get banned yet again was back vandalizing it over and over. You can't claim "pissing off so many people and editors" when it was just that one nutjob. They locked the page as a favor to me, not as any sort of punishment. But then you never were one to stick to the facts... ] 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
	Once again, I must ask you to stop editing my user page. ] 6 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

			:: Hello, I am the admin who ] ]'s ''user'' page, not his ''talk'' page. DreamGuy is correct, it was not a punishment. He can request it to be unprotected any time he wants. ] ] 13:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
	if you would kindly remove insulting words from it, then sure.
	] 6 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

			:Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page any time you want, whether you're editing other pages or not. ] 23:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	==Purpose of Misplaced Pages==

	This web site exists to create an encyclopedia. It's not a chat site, personal blog or opinion board.
	*You can't upload amusing images of a rodent humping your face.
	*You can't delete information about people who '''oppose''' a particular practice or lifestyle.

			thank you very much , friday. as am email adedress, i use fennecs.forever@gmail.com mostly ( if i can just rememberthe password)
	Please review these links:
			] 23:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)'
	#]
	#]

			Gabriel, no one wants you to go away. The arbitration committe are made up of very mature Misplaced Pages editors and they will not be quick or unfair. Continue working with us and you wont have to stop editing. I doubt you'll be banned. Just stay low, and have fun! - ] 10:01, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
	If you abide by site policy, you might enjoy volunteering here, but if you don't then you could quickly wear out your welcome. ] July 6, 2005 19:50 (UTC)

			:Speak for yourself. It would be much nicer if he did go away and never came back... assuming he can;t be bothered to follow the rules. Of course if he does follow the rules (not that I'm holding my breath, as he's been breaking them pretty much nonstop for several months and won't even slow down when an RfC overwhelmingly shows to him that editors do not approve of his shenanigans) he is perfectly welcome. ] 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

			:: Well, I would say that most of the editors here do not want Gabriel to go. You're a special case because you & he have been fighting for a while now. I have no opinions on who's right between you two, because I havent been following it, and I don't plan to. If Gabriel will agree to play nicely (and I think he will and can), then I look forward to him still being here. - ] 17:03, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
	i didnt ipload any such image, nor did i delete anu such information. the image was placed , if you look into the history of this page, by someone other then i. amnd i do not find the image amusing. as for the information bit, i took out irrelevant data, as far as i know.
			::: Wit respect, Grubber, I think you may be mistaken based on the endorsements in the RfC. I have not been engaged in any type of 'fight' with GabrielSimon, but I've been monitoring this because of some Gabrielsimon POV I had to fix a while ago, and his edits have followed a persistent pattern of disregarding Misplaced Pages standards and practices. You '''should''' follow things and read the abitration evidence in progress, you may be surprised. I have hoped that GS would fix his habits, but they are as bad now as they were before, unapologetically so. His edits are bringing down the quality of WikiPedia and creating lots of work for the rest of us. - ] 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
	] 6 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

			:::: Chairboy, I have followed things. I first confronted Gabriel on July 6 and since then I have been a regular reader of everything written by him and about him. I also had some edit conflicts on ]. I know what's going on. And, it is my impression, from the talk pages of the RfC, that the editors that signed the page ''truly'' want to help him, not kick him out. I support the RFAr, because my efforts and the efforts of the fellow editors have not been enough to stop the behavior everyone is complaining about. But, I do not believe GS is a bad guy or deliberatly misbehaving, he's just a stubborn guy with his own methods and I believe this RFAr's outcome will give him the input he needs to be a productive member of Misplaced Pages. If not, then I fully support stronger sanctions. But, I'm an optimist and have high hopes for Gabriel. '''Gabriel, don't let us down!''' - ] 18:18, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
	== Please Use the Talk Pages ==
	Please use the talk pages before you make (a) drastic deletions to a page (your edits on ]) or (b) controversial changes to a page (your edits on ]). We want to make sure that Misplaced Pages is a good resource for everyone, and everyone has to play fair and nice. - ] 2005 July 6 20:13 (UTC)

			::::: Well, I throw my hands up. Now, two of your sockpuppets have been blocked and you're deleting evidence from your RfAr page. I was hoping you'd give this a good-faith effort, but it's clear you aren't willing to work with us. - ] 11:39, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

			== Thanks! ==
	my change to wolves was not contraversial, it was facts. as for smiths pages, i no longer care, as the article is likly unsalvagable and is likly to be deleted.
	] 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

			Thanks for the welcome on my talk page! I appreciate it, and I look forward to many healthy discussions in the future. :) --] 5 Aug 2005
	:You need to understand our ] policy. Have you read it yet? betrays a lack of understanding: you're being less than neutral here.

			== This is very disappointing ==
	:If you think wolf hunting is cruel, or that governments should ban it, fine. Locate a source which calls wolf hunting cruel and put that in the article. Mention campaigns to ban wolf hunting in the article. But don't make the article say - or even hint - that wolf hunting is bad.

			I apologize for everything going on about the Sockpuppet allegations. I do think they are ''extremely'' superstitious, and so I just presented the evidence when asked. I wasn't trying to stab you in the back, I have tried to defend you multiple times, but, beleive me, it seems like there is no hope on this site. I wish you success in the future, a cure over the eye infection, and employment. I am sorry all these things have happened, and I hope you are not a sockpuppet. Best wishes to you in the future, ] ] ] 04:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC).
	:I'd rather teach you than, er, "throw you to the wolves" as some others have suggested. You do want to contribute to this volunteer encyclopedia, don't you? ] July 6, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

			:I don't know what "hoopy" means exactly, but it is pretty clear you're pissed off at me and most of the Wikipedians you have encountered here. ] ] ] 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

			no no, its like being cool. in the hitchhikers guide its like " look at that frood, how hoopy ishe, carrying around his twoel like that" (frood = dude, etc)
	i didnt mention a moral judgment, i said it was unfari, then i dexcribed the process of arial wolf hunting, to a tee. if someone thinnks thats POV, instead of the blatent truth, which is what i put there, then its thier POV that tells them so.
	] 6 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

			i forgive as surely as the tides come back, no worries man.
	The fact that multiple people have reverted your edits means it is controversial, despite how true you believe these things to be. Just take it to the talk pages first; otherwise edit wars ensue. - ] 2005 July 6 20:31 (UTC)
			] 04:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

	people need to know HOW people uisually hunt wolvs, so that they know the gorey details, becyuse yes, ariel wolf hunting is totrally unfair, and quite heartless. do you agree with this thought? ( if so, then hlep me out a bit)
	] 6 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

			::I feel pretty guilty, and if Ketrovin will come back I won't feel as bad. I think it is time for me to take another WikiBreak, I have caused enough damage. What really pisses me off to no end is that I try being civil at times (giving barnstars, welcomes, etc.) But can't get any of that back in return. I start college in three weeks, Misplaced Pages won't see much of me then. ] ] ] 05:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
	The things you describe are terrible, but Misplaced Pages is not a forum for "gory details." Words like "gory," "heartless," "unfair" are opinions and emotions, not facts. I think the abuse is already in the wolf article. Maybe put a link to a page that describes the abuses for people who want to know more. That sound fair? - ] 2005 July 6 20:38 (UTC)

			your just trying to do whats rioght, i cant faut you for tht, but since your going in three weeks, why not stay, and let school be your wiki vacation?
	Have you read ] yet? You're not getting the concept here. Misplaced Pages isn't about debating what's fair or not. Find a forum for that. Saying something is "unfair" is a value judgement, and POV. ] 6 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
			] 05:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

			:Thanks, I'll stay until 29 August. I plan to stay way longer than that, but edit ''way'' less. See ] to see yet another WikiDebate unfold. ] ] ] 06:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
	so in essance when we are talking about the massacres of the jews in WW2, youd have us happilyu say people died, instead of calling it what it isw, mass murder. well, the same vien of thought is for this issue., murder is murder. areal wolf hunting is totally unfair, no matter what way you look at it, hence it is a fact.
	] 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

			from hiswords, he aint comin back. notyour fault tho. ... get my email?
	* The ] article is an excellent article. It covers the subject without getting emotionally heated. If someone asked me to write that article, I probably couldn't have done it. But if you look at the ] page, the holocaust is a very small part of it, and the reference is very neutral. So, my point is that I don't believe the ] article is the best place for information on bad hunting practices. So, I would suggest either an external link, or if the topic is substantial enough, a separate article on conservation efforts dealing with wolves. - ] 2005 July 6 20:56 (UTC)
			] 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Responsibility and compromise==

			Gabriel, you must take responsibility for your edits here, or the arbitration committee will take adverse action against you. So, please think about what being responsible means.
	a worthwhile suyggetion, but it is still true that they do it only becaue of a deep seeded cultural anachrinism of being afraid of wolves, and its sitll true that they chase dpown entire packs, until they are too exhauxzsted to move and then walk over and kill them excexution style, at point blank range. with thoseexact words, how is it POV?

			My own suggestions are:
	thats exactly what happens.
			#Stop reverting so much. Limit yourself to one reversion per day. After that, just take some time off. Let others evaluate the situation. Trust the process: your fellow contributors actually do share your desire to make good articles.
			#]. Do not say ''you don't get to ... you're not an admin'' because (1) neither are you and (2) it hurts other people's feelings. By the way, I hope you don't mind my taking an authoritative tone with you; you haven't complained before, so I assume it's okay. You do realize I'm trying to help you out, right?
			Think about what I'm saying, please. ] 14:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

			==Your RfAr==
	] 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

			Incidentally, Gabriel... alllll that stuff you are putting into the evidence sections other people wrote for the ] against you are violations of the rules of evidence for the RfAr. You are not supposed to touch any section someone else wrote. At all. Ever. If you want to respond you are supposed to make your own section, just like in the RfC. Please read and follow the instructions on the pages involved, that'll clear it right up for you. If I were you I'd move all that out before someone erases it all. ] 06:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
	* Well, it's controversial. How widespread is it? How many wolves die every year according to that method? Is it significant? (If it's not significant, it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia, if it is, then it does belong) Is it illegal? What types of efforts are being made to stop it? What types of hunting methods are more humane? There are a lot of sides to the sentences you wrote, and since all sides arent addressed, it's POV. So, if you really believe it belongs in the wolf page, talk about it about it in the Talk page first... get others to help. If there's enough interest, you can write an article on efforts to exterminate/conserve wolf populations. - ] 2005 July 6 21:08 (UTC)

			:Oh, and probably not a good idea to have one of your sockpuppets write the response section of your RfC or RfAr... kind of makes it difficult for you to pretend they are completely different people. ] 09:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

			Gabriel, before you edit your RfAr page, '''read the rules!''' They are listed at the top of the page and you are violating wikipedia policy in the very page people are talking about your violating wikipedia policy. - ] 11:26, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
	check the link i have above about wolf hunting to check for specific figures, but the alaskan populations are being " thinned out" far to regularly, in fact in alaska its possiblwe to slaughter a wolf , or several, from the air if your a civillian. the practise is widespread.
	] 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

			==A discussion==
	* Yes, I'm familiar with it. I come from Wyoming and the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone was a huge issue -- and there's reasonable, honest people on both sides of the argument. All I ask is that you use the Talk pages to help put together a neutral discussion on the topic before you edit the article again. Controversial topics take caution and care and should be discussed before being committed to an article. If you were just updating the price of butter in 2005, there would be no need for the formality. - ] 2005 July 6 21:20 (UTC)
			Gabriel, we need to sit down and have a ''discussion'' about this, okay? ] 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Khulhy/Ketrovin==

			You really, ''really'' disappoint me. --] 22:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
	the fact remains that if i were to spell out thje facts in cold, logical, emotionkless terms, it would still seem to be calling it creul. likly because it IS cruel.
	] 6 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

			== Ketrovin, Khulhy, Gavin the Chosen... ==
	* Listen, you've shown that you're capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I'm not contesting the ''merit'' of your arguments, just discussing ways that we can get your information incorporated without creating edit storms and without people getting upset. Discuss the stuff you want to add in the Talk pages and work with the group to put something nice together. - ] 2005 July 6 21:32 (UTC)

			Gabriel,
	==Another Warning==
	You are in violation of the three-revert rule (]) again at ]; please discuss your edits at the specified talk page ] prior to reverting again, or you will be blocked and brought to the attention of the arbitration committee for chronic offending of this rule (I believe you have been blocked three times at the present?).

			I'd like to ask you, in the hope of salvaging your Misplaced Pages "career," to please take a step back and think about what you're doing here. You seem to be "acting out," either through frustration, pent-up anger, or the desire to take your mind off the RfC/RfAr process. I just want you to consider whether this kind of activity is really in keeping with the vision you have of yourself, and the vision you would like other people to have of you. The arbitrators have not yet issued any findings or rulings, and you might also like to reflect on what kind of impression your behavior from day to day is liable to make on them. You certainly don't have to listen to me, but I am speaking out of an honest good will that has not yet been exhausted...but is, frankly, getting pretty close. You have worn everyone's patience pretty thin lately, particularly with these sock puppet antics, in which you have publicly lied to many people. Do you believe that this is truly reflective of your character? I think the very best thing you could do is take a break from Misplaced Pages for a day or two, and consider how you want to move forward. Please think about this. If you could demonstrate some sincere reflection and a genuine desire to improve your behavior, I am sure it would go a long way with everyone here.
	"Chronic offenders <nowiki></nowiki> may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis..."
			--] 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

	We value your contributions, and encourage you to seek a more diplomatic way to share your point of view. Documentation is one way to avoid such issues, as focusing more on using NPOV wording, including absolute statements and emotionally charged wording. Happy editing. -] 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

			==.==

			==Gabrielsimon is now using the name ]==
	liar, if anyone "valued" anything i had to say they wouldnt delete it outright, which is what they are doing.
			Gabriel has switched names. If you are looking for him, go there. ] 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
	] 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

			==Serial probation==
			Please look at ] and see if you think you can live with it. I am assuming you are very young and can rapidly learn to meet Misplaced Pages's expectations. ] 16:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

			==New account==
	It is true that we value all points of view, that is what makes an open source movement work well - the dissident's fresh ideas often become the standard - as seen by features within various Linux flavors. Same on Misplaced Pages - this is what makes an open source project such as this so great. If people delete you outright, you should discuss with them the reasons why and then alter your edits accordingly, such as removing ].

			Hi, Gabriel, I hope you've been well. I've taken the liberty of adding the new account to the userpage, and striking the old one out. Best wishes, ] 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
	That said, I don't appreciate being called a liar, as I value my integrity. Name calling (]) is not an appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior. You may want to familiarize yourself with ], ], and ]. Please continue to contribute. Happy editing. -] 7 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

			==Indef block==
			Per the ] of ] (a known sock/alias of this account) by SlimVirgin, I have indefinately blocked Gabrielsimon. - ] (]) 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

	peopple keep doing it to me, and i never see anyone bat an eye. i dont personally complain becasue i dont really feel as though i should, though i am getting really sick of people deleting every single thing i say, in more then one instance, someon folowed me accross articles, destroying everything i tried to work on. i wish for this to stop.
	] 7 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

			Why did this take so long to happen? This guy has wasted more hours of wiki time than 20 troll/sock puppets combined. Good Ridance! ] 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
	If this is truly as consistent and universal as you say it is, you may want to look at what is making them do it. While I do not know your complete history or your reputation (nor do I want to), I have seen a history of emotionally-charged words, POV and use of use of "absolutes." You may want to tone those down - just a suggestion.

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	For example, your comment above may be true, however, words such as "never," "anyone," "every single thing i say," and "everything" would be considered "absolutes." While some editors may be doing this, not everyone is. (I hope you realize I'm using the post above as an example, not criticizing; as I think your statement is justified to some degree, and appropriate for a talk page, but wouldn't be for an article page). Let me know what I can do to help as an admin, as I hope for you to have a positive experience. -] 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:09, 16 November 2024

Now editing as User:Gimmiet. --Craigkbryant 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

if your here, then why not look at the poetry section on my user page and leave some comments about it?

Old talk can be found in:

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)

Gabrielsimon is now using the name User:Gavin the Chosen

Gabriel has switched names. If you are looking for him, go there. DreamGuy 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

.

Hmm

You appear to be the only editor currently insisting on removing "God" from Mysticism. Once again, you had agreed to one edit a day when there is conflict. Once again, you have gone back on your word quite quickly. If you don't want to be held to one edit a day, why do you keep agreeing to it? Friday 06:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

i only undid what sam spade did. any hoo i beleive that Divine spirit encomapssres the cncept of god, thus eliminating th need to say god. Gabrielsimon 08:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did undo what Sam Spade did. You made a change. He didn't like it, so he edited it. You then immediately reverted it back. Do you see that this is exactly what you agreed to stop doing? More importantly, do you see why this is not a good way for editors to resolve disagreements? Friday 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

i had already explained things on the talk page and he had a history of reverting anything other then his perfectioon. Gabrielsimon 15:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You're edit warring again. I'm not trying to say you're right or wrong, but you're clearly not doing what you said you'd do. Friday 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

hes beoing a dletionist, and yes, im sorry i did that, but its not like its unwarrented to try to get someone to stop censoring everything... sigh, i should be more vcarefull. Gabrielsimon 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why did you revert the compromise version? That seems quite one-sided. Friday 02:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

im srry, i wasnt aware of a comprimise version, what page are we talking about? Gabrielsimon 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mysticism. This os the edit I mean. You still appear to be the only one who's currently insisting on removing God, and you're IMO editing by brute force. Friday 02:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"divine spirit" is a concept that overlaps ?god" and is more pervasive throught the world, i thought that having both was like a skipping record. Gabrielsimon 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Heading changes

Hey Gabriel; welcome back. Can I quickly suggest that it's best not to change the headings of discussions on talk pages, as they're likely to be linked to directly, as we discussed before. If you have something to say, it's best to make a comment in the discussion saying what you want to. Vashti 07:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

3rrisms

the way people keep using it on me seems rather like a penatly to me, rather hen something to diffuse conflict. Gabrielsimon 09:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familliar enough with your case to comment; the 3RR cases I handle are of an immediate nature. El_C 09:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

dammning evidance of a very stubborn mibnd

this diff might be it, oh, and nice fractals! Gabrielsimon 10:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like, I'm quite fond of Mandelbrot set. I have reverted his changes, thanks for the notice. El_C 10:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not move my words around so it looks like I am replying to something other than what I actually replied to.... changing the context of someone else's words is highly abusive, as is changing the actual words themselves. If you don't like them, remove them all, but don't change them, as you do not have the right to do that. DreamGuy 11:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

its called chronological order. Gabrielsimon 15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the feedback you seek...

I see your post a few minutes ago on my page: "i actyually have qa dot com... www.gabrielsimon.com

please tell me what you think :)"

FEEDBACK: The formatting is excellent, with links to categories both on the side (vertically) and along the top (horizontally), however, only the horizontal lines on top show "sub-categories" when you mouse over them, or at least "new issues" has subcategories. Wait a second: I missed something: The vertical column already has the links sub-divided. OK, that's good so far.

You have a section where people can both sign in and post comments. Good also. However, you're the only one posting, and also you might want to look at my pages for ideas on content. Wait - oh, I see under "news" that others post also. Good, however, there are two sub-links here: "User Items" and "latest news." You don't have them sub-divided so that you see the links as "sub-categories" like you do in the "new issues" link above. Might wanna reformat that for your readers.

Also, on content, while I'm not an anime fan, I don't worry about that -yet, your page is low on content. Also, it is low on categories for content. Check out my pages for example: On "categories," I delve into "legal," "health," "political," and "religious" issues. PLUS, the amount of content is staggering. I don't know if it's wise to spend that much time online, but you can get to all my personal pages by going to my "wiki" user page.

I'd appreciate feedback.

OH! One more thing -how did you make a table in my page without any special language? I see that part of your comments were in a rectangular box -but, how'd you do that? Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

its an automated process to select a modual like that with PHP servers... my sites jsut starting, but thankls! ill go take a look when i get some time. Gabrielsimon 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind about the box - I figured that out. However, my answer is above, and the rest of it looks ok.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Pssst. You're not being very neutral on Therianthropy. Friday 01:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i thought it was, see, since not all westerners think that therianthropy is a mental illness, i inseted  the some part, and since its rally not fair to call it strange, i removed that, the issue isnt really controversial, just diofficult.... oh , and then theres the fact that the bulk of westerners havnt reallty read much on this subject, so uninformed seems to fit.

Gabrielsimon 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Gabriel, I reverted this edit just now. I want you to try to understand that you can't just remove people's comments, even when they annoy you, even when you disagree. Much of the RfC concerns this very same sort of behavior. You are welcome to respond to, but not remove, comments that you disagree with. Joyous (talk) 02:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

i apologize, but he seems to contantly try to find ways to get me blocked, its getting tedious to have to tolerate his vendetta. Gabrielsimon 02:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's much better! I know it's hard to leave comments in place when you strongly disagree, but it's SO much better to comment on them, rather than just removing them. Joyous (talk) 02:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

thanks you . ill try this tact more often. Gabrielsimon 02:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

protecting

pages thatr DreamGuy stubbornly refuses to listen are pages where he creates turmoil and editr wars, so i have protected them, until he learns to listen, i apologize if im not supposed to. Gabrielsimon 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) You are not permitted to do that, only admins are. El_C 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I've protected Vampire and Therianthropy, but not Vampire fiction as the situation doesn't seem quite bad enough there, and please don't take this as the cue to make it bad enough. ;-) In future, if you need page protection, put a note on an admin's page or on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

okee dokeee. Gabrielsimon 02:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The same applies to your RfC, by the way. Just adding the {{protected}} template doesn't actually protect a page. You need to go through Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection or otherwise convince an admin it's necessary. Bryan 07:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i was hoping to make him stop deleting what took me a half hour to put there. he does this kind of stuff a lot, and its really starting to get on my nerves. Gabrielsimon 07:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: RfC

DreamGuiykeepstrying to delete counterevidance i post, so i placed a the protectedstatus on the RFCpageabpiut me, i know its not right to do, but how else am i supposed to defend myself with hisconstant deletions? please assist me in keeping it protected. i canpromimse not to doanything that could be added to it while its there. Gabrielsimon 07:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, just don't place that protection tag on it again — you didn't actually protect it, only admins are able to do that, and the tag is for convinience (for example, I protected a page today without finding a need to employ that tag). *** I am afraid I will presently not be able to spare the time to assist you in this dispute, sorry. You may wish to ask another admin, or list a request at WP:RFPP. Goodluck! El_C 08:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

amaz9ingly rudenesses

People at My RFC drovea newbie away topday. that being Ketrovin i dontthink thats right. dreamGuy was expecially rude to him, everyone thought he was me, which isnt the case, i am me, as it were. check out the talk page on Religion and schizotypy to see where the cincher seemed to come from. Gabrielsimon 23:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I still lack the time to study and involve myself in this dispute, sorry. I hope it works out and that it gets resolved soon. Goodluck! El_C 20:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you. I hope to be of help. Devilbat

enjoy your stay! Gabrielsimon 05:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop changing links in the evidence section of your RfC

I really don't understand what you're trying to do right now in the evidence section of your RfC, but your edits are deleting or mixing up the links there. Please stop for a moment and explain what you're doing so others can perhaps tell you how to do it without breaking things. Bryan 07:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i only changed that becasue its a link thats only one before , in the history that clearly shows that the complaint is totdally bull plop.

 pleaes pleave it  in, im tryingto establish the point that Dreamguy complains to much

Gabrielsimon 07:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The link you're putting in there doesn't show the same objection. The original link was to a comment you removed from your RfC, but the link you're replacing it with is a comment you removed from talk:therianthropy that was already mentioned in the previous evidence item. Bryan 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

its tjhe same cpmplaint. Gabrielsimon 07:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is two different instances of you deleting stuff. One was a comment from talk:therianthropy, and the other was a piece of evidence from your RfC. The fact that you are deleting stuff in multiple different places is quite relevant as evidence. The fact that you keep on doing this even now after being repeatedly told not to is probably also going to be a piece of evidence. Please stop deleting evidence from your RfC! Bryan 07:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

,look athte origional link, the one i havnt touched, its clear that i removed only unsigned comments. and thats the point. Gabrielsimon 07:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not the link that you were removing, though. You were removing this link which shows you deleting this link from the RfC's evidence section. You were replacing it with a link to something completely different, a duplicate of a link that was already in the RfC's evidence section elsewhere. By the way, it is still wrong to remove comments even if they are "unsigned". If the lack of signature is a problem then you should have just signed it for DreamGuy and moved on. Bryan 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

wht the hell? when dud that happen? that s it, im changing , password. Gabrielsimon 08:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When did what happen? Bryan 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

thus is gonnas ound reallystupid but i dont remember thisentire sectiono fmy talk page. andsincewhen do i spell that well? Gabrielsimon 08:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There are like fivecomputerssin this house and the otherp eople knowme well enough to guess my passcodes. Soi just changedmy passwoerd, pehraps nopw nothingwill go wreong Gabrielsimon 08:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that someone else was using your account to delete those links from the evidence section of your RfC and engage me in debate about it here on your user talk page? Bryan 08:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

Hey, Gabriel. Just a quick hint: you could save yourself a lot of trouble if, rather than deleting unsigned comments, you looked up the signature details in the article history and added them to the comment yourself. Just check for who posted the comment and when, and tag something like (Unsigned comment posted by ] at 08:53, August 4 2005) on to the comment to sign it. (I see Bryan has already pointed this out. :) I'll still leave the comment, though, as it has instructions for doing it.) Vashti 08:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

agrravating cicrumstance

just askeduy whoalso liveshere,andhejust laughedat me and told mehesbeen boingm,efor a whiletimight... i apologize forany disruptiveactiity this has vasued. i have just changed,my password(sorlike athirdtime to be sure) Gabrielsimon 08:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to that, without getting further involved. I have'nt been adversely affected, at any rate. El_C 08:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, fair warning: removing other people's comments, especially comments of those with whom you are in dispute, is disruptive. If you do not stop this, you will be blocked for disruption. dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

fairs fair. ill be on my toes. Gabrielsimon 09:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Gabriel, thanks for your note. I know you're trying not to be a problem editor, but you must try even harder, and the way to do that is very simple: (1) You have to stick to our rules, no matter how frustrated you get, and (2) You have to accept that you won't always get your own way. In practical terms, this means you must stop reverting so much, you can't put protection tags on pages, you can't delete posts from talk pages just because you don't like them, and you mustn't resort to personal attacks even if you're attacked yourself. The reverting is the worst problem and it really does have to stop, because you'll find yourself banned if it doesn't — not just blocked by an admin, but banned entirely. If you feel you're being reverted unreasonably, ask another editor for help. Don't just keep reverting. I know it's frustrating, but hey, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Being permanently frustrated is part of the experience. File:Meh.gif. Check your e-mail by the way. I sent you something. SlimVirgin 09:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

as it issaid in olden days " i hear and i obay" im a bit of an idiot in that if someone doesnt spell it out i dont always get the point) Gabrielsimon 09:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I don't think Gabriel is likely to get a permanent ban as long as he's willing to listen to an experienced Admin (like you or me).

Gabriel, you managed to avoid suspension for the entire time I was on vacation. Whatever you did then, keep doing it! We shouldn't have to block your account to get you to follow Misplaced Pages policy. (Or should I just block you for 6 hours, everytime you mess up?) Uncle Ed 16:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

sorry. yeah, that probly is a fair way of doing things. Gabrielsimon 09:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

why?

why did you reert my edit to the steve jobs article? what i wrote is true. Gabrielsimon 11:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, but it is not interesting in the grand scheme of things. We should avoid self-references in Misplaced Pages, and in articles we should regard Misplaced Pages just as any other website (however difficult it is to maintain that neutrality). Also, making references to "his latest meeting" in an encyclopedia that is likely to exist for hundreds of years is not useful. The question we have to ask ourselves in this case is whether we would have included "Steve Jobs said at WWDC 2005 that britannica.com is one of his favorite websites.". I'm sorry for reverting without a comment. — David Remahl 12:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

s'ok, but i still think it might be perbnatnat,becasue how often doesa billionaire software moguel wih so much to do take the time o tlel an auditorium full of software developers that wikipedia isa good thing... ill even insert the date.,,,, Gabrielsimon 12:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was there. I know the date. I know what he said. I also know that Jobs has endorsed a wide variety of products in the past. This one was not special in any way. For example, in the same part of his WWDC keynote he endorsed Business Week just as much as Misplaced Pages. — David Remahl 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not really relevant to the article on Steve Jobs, but it might be relevant to the article on Misplaced Pages itself. Vashti 12:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, more-so at least. Still, I believe it will be extremely parenthetical in the history of Misplaced Pages in five years... — David Remahl 12:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Such information may be at home in one of the articles listed here: Category:Misplaced Pages in the media NoSeptember 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy

What exactly is this guy's problem? Devilbat

m hes a very rude person to begin with, if his edits and attitude trowards, well, everyone, is to be any indication. he has a vendetta againstm e and seemsto be trying to get me blocked. or possibly banned. i dont bleeive his edits can be taken in good faith. Gabrielsimon 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC stuff

"DreamGuiykeepstrying to delete counterevidance i post," The RFC form is broken into three basic sections: the people who are involved with the dispute and say someone else is the cause of the problem, the "response" from that person, and "outside views" from people who weren't involved with the dispute but wish to weigh in on the situation. If an RFC is about your behaviour, then you should really only post stuff inside the "response" section. If you want to reply to specific points in the evidence section, then you can either copy/past the list of evidence into your response section and reply there, or simply call out numbers referencing the numeric list of evidence and post a reply. FuelWagon 14:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Slow down!

Remember, we're not in a race. If it bugs you to have an article wrong (in your opinion) for a few minutes, take a break from that article and come back to it later. Specifically, I'm referring to this. Waiting 7 minutes for an explanation before reverting back probably isn't long enough. That said, I see you stopped reverting once the explanation was brought to your attention. This is a Good Thing. As I said before, I can see that you're making some effort to play nice here. However, not every editor is going to look upon your actions with such a degree of good faith. You can never satisfy ALL your critics, but if you're running afoul of handfuls of reasonable editors, this indicates a problem in your editing behavior. Friday 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry sabout that, got a little antzy... Gabrielsimon 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Id like editors such as Ed Poor to be my defence, if my RFC is any ijndication, ii suck at being my owen attorney. Gabrielsimon 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. There is only prosecution and judgement. But you can ask for assistance from Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates to provide counter evidence or explanations. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on your 2,000th edit. (see here: ]) D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! hope everthings all hoopy ! Gabrielsimon 19:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

since

since i hae being told what to do, and i have arbitration agsint me ight now, hows this for a c omprimiose, i dont get banned, but ill go away for, say, hows two weeks sound? hen ill give things another go? Gabrielsimon 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, (some of) the people "telling you what to do" are trying to help, not trying to annoy. Friday 22:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

i meant it in this sense " i hate being pounished byu other peoplew , so i think ill do it myself. Gabrielsimon 22:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

deleted Dreamguys comments AGAIn, althoug you have already ruined wikipedia for yet another newb. Gabrielsimon 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a newb, it was you on another account, please stop lying. DreamGuy 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

interrestingly, Dreamguy ~~keeps pissing off so many people and editors his talk page has been locked. and he still wont be nice to anyone~~. Gabrielsimon 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and not polite. He was nice to me today. And please read my comment way below. Uncle Ed 14:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry... my talk page is not locked. My user page is locked because that sockpuppet of a previously banned user who i helped get banned yet again was back vandalizing it over and over. You can't claim "pissing off so many people and editors" when it was just that one nutjob. They locked the page as a favor to me, not as any sort of punishment. But then you never were one to stick to the facts... DreamGuy 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am the admin who protected DreamGuy's user page, not his talk page. DreamGuy is correct, it was not a punishment. He can request it to be unprotected any time he wants. FreplySpang (talk) 13:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page any time you want, whether you're editing other pages or not. Friday 23:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

thank you very much , friday. as am email adedress, i use fennecs.forever@gmail.com mostly ( if i can just rememberthe password) Gabrielsimon 23:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)'

Gabriel, no one wants you to go away. The arbitration committe are made up of very mature Misplaced Pages editors and they will not be quick or unfair. Continue working with us and you wont have to stop editing. I doubt you'll be banned. Just stay low, and have fun! - grubber 10:01, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. It would be much nicer if he did go away and never came back... assuming he can;t be bothered to follow the rules. Of course if he does follow the rules (not that I'm holding my breath, as he's been breaking them pretty much nonstop for several months and won't even slow down when an RfC overwhelmingly shows to him that editors do not approve of his shenanigans) he is perfectly welcome. DreamGuy 10:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would say that most of the editors here do not want Gabriel to go. You're a special case because you & he have been fighting for a while now. I have no opinions on who's right between you two, because I havent been following it, and I don't plan to. If Gabriel will agree to play nicely (and I think he will and can), then I look forward to him still being here. - grubber 17:03, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Wit respect, Grubber, I think you may be mistaken based on the endorsements in the RfC. I have not been engaged in any type of 'fight' with GabrielSimon, but I've been monitoring this because of some Gabrielsimon POV I had to fix a while ago, and his edits have followed a persistent pattern of disregarding Misplaced Pages standards and practices. You should follow things and read the abitration evidence in progress, you may be surprised. I have hoped that GS would fix his habits, but they are as bad now as they were before, unapologetically so. His edits are bringing down the quality of WikiPedia and creating lots of work for the rest of us. - Chairboy 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Chairboy, I have followed things. I first confronted Gabriel on July 6 and since then I have been a regular reader of everything written by him and about him. I also had some edit conflicts on Wolf. I know what's going on. And, it is my impression, from the talk pages of the RfC, that the editors that signed the page truly want to help him, not kick him out. I support the RFAr, because my efforts and the efforts of the fellow editors have not been enough to stop the behavior everyone is complaining about. But, I do not believe GS is a bad guy or deliberatly misbehaving, he's just a stubborn guy with his own methods and I believe this RFAr's outcome will give him the input he needs to be a productive member of Misplaced Pages. If not, then I fully support stronger sanctions. But, I'm an optimist and have high hopes for Gabriel. Gabriel, don't let us down! - grubber 18:18, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Well, I throw my hands up. Now, two of your sockpuppets have been blocked and you're deleting evidence from your RfAr page. I was hoping you'd give this a good-faith effort, but it's clear you aren't willing to work with us. - grubber 11:39, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome on my talk page! I appreciate it, and I look forward to many healthy discussions in the future. :) --HanClinto 5 Aug 2005

This is very disappointing

I apologize for everything going on about the Sockpuppet allegations. I do think they are extremely superstitious, and so I just presented the evidence when asked. I wasn't trying to stab you in the back, I have tried to defend you multiple times, but, beleive me, it seems like there is no hope on this site. I wish you success in the future, a cure over the eye infection, and employment. I am sorry all these things have happened, and I hope you are not a sockpuppet. Best wishes to you in the future, D. J. Bracey (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC).

I don't know what "hoopy" means exactly, but it is pretty clear you're pissed off at me and most of the Wikipedians you have encountered here. D. J. Bracey (talk)

04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

no no, its like being cool. in the hitchhikers guide its like " look at that frood, how hoopy ishe, carrying around his twoel like that" (frood = dude, etc)

i forgive as surely as the tides come back, no worries man. Gabrielsimon 04:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel pretty guilty, and if Ketrovin will come back I won't feel as bad. I think it is time for me to take another WikiBreak, I have caused enough damage. What really pisses me off to no end is that I try being civil at times (giving barnstars, welcomes, etc.) But can't get any of that back in return. I start college in three weeks, Misplaced Pages won't see much of me then. D. J. Bracey (talk)

05:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

your just trying to do whats rioght, i cant faut you for tht, but since your going in three weeks, why not stay, and let school be your wiki vacation? Gabrielsimon 05:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stay until 29 August. I plan to stay way longer than that, but edit way less. See here to see yet another WikiDebate unfold. D. J. Bracey (talk)

06:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

from hiswords, he aint comin back. notyour fault tho. ... get my email? Gabrielsimon 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Responsibility and compromise

Gabriel, you must take responsibility for your edits here, or the arbitration committee will take adverse action against you. So, please think about what being responsible means.

My own suggestions are:

Stop reverting so much. Limit yourself to one reversion per day. After that, just take some time off. Let others evaluate the situation. Trust the process: your fellow contributors actually do share your desire to make good articles.
Avoid personal remarks. Do not say you don't get to ... you're not an admin because (1) neither are you and (2) it hurts other people's feelings. By the way, I hope you don't mind my taking an authoritative tone with you; you haven't complained before, so I assume it's okay. You do realize I'm trying to help you out, right?

Think about what I'm saying, please. Uncle Ed 14:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your RfAr

Incidentally, Gabriel... alllll that stuff you are putting into the evidence sections other people wrote for the RfAr against you are violations of the rules of evidence for the RfAr. You are not supposed to touch any section someone else wrote. At all. Ever. If you want to respond you are supposed to make your own section, just like in the RfC. Please read and follow the instructions on the pages involved, that'll clear it right up for you. If I were you I'd move all that out before someone erases it all. DreamGuy 06:16, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and probably not a good idea to have one of your sockpuppets write the response section of your RfC or RfAr... kind of makes it difficult for you to pretend they are completely different people. DreamGuy 09:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, before you edit your RfAr page, read the rules! They are listed at the top of the page and you are violating wikipedia policy in the very page people are talking about your violating wikipedia policy. - grubber 11:26, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

A discussion

Gabriel, we need to sit down and have a discussion about this, okay? DS 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Khulhy/Ketrovin

You really, really disappoint me. --khaosworks 22:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ketrovin, Khulhy, Gavin the Chosen...

Gabriel,

I'd like to ask you, in the hope of salvaging your Misplaced Pages "career," to please take a step back and think about what you're doing here. You seem to be "acting out," either through frustration, pent-up anger, or the desire to take your mind off the RfC/RfAr process. I just want you to consider whether this kind of activity is really in keeping with the vision you have of yourself, and the vision you would like other people to have of you. The arbitrators have not yet issued any findings or rulings, and you might also like to reflect on what kind of impression your behavior from day to day is liable to make on them. You certainly don't have to listen to me, but I am speaking out of an honest good will that has not yet been exhausted...but is, frankly, getting pretty close. You have worn everyone's patience pretty thin lately, particularly with these sock puppet antics, in which you have publicly lied to many people. Do you believe that this is truly reflective of your character? I think the very best thing you could do is take a break from Misplaced Pages for a day or two, and consider how you want to move forward. Please think about this. If you could demonstrate some sincere reflection and a genuine desire to improve your behavior, I am sure it would go a long way with everyone here. --Craigkbryant 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

.

Gabrielsimon is now using the name User:Gavin the Chosen

Gabriel has switched names. If you are looking for him, go there. DreamGuy 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Serial probation

Please look at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop#Serial_probation and see if you think you can live with it. I am assuming you are very young and can rapidly learn to meet Misplaced Pages's expectations. Fred Bauder 16:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

New account

Hi, Gabriel, I hope you've been well. I've taken the liberty of adding the new account to the userpage, and striking the old one out. Best wishes, El_C 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Indef block

Per the indef block of Gimmiet (a known sock/alias of this account) by SlimVirgin, I have indefinately blocked Gabrielsimon. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did this take so long to happen? This guy has wasted more hours of wiki time than 20 troll/sock puppets combined. Good Ridance! J Shultz 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Inanna

Inanna has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)