User talk:Gabrielsimon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:32, 18 July 2005 editGabrielsimon (talk \| contribs)2,118 edits →[]← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:09, 16 November 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,877 edits Inanna listed for good article reassessment (GAR-helper)
(390 intermediate revisions by 43 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Now editing as ]. --] 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
	''Older talk can be found in ].''
	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?
	i hope i did that right

	----
			''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.		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 ]==
			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.
			] 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)

			thanks you . ill try this tact more often.
			] 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.
			] 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.
			] 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)


			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.
			] 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. ] 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 ]. Goodluck! ] 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! ] 20:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

	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 ]s have been violated is nonsense.

			enjoy your stay!
	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. ] 11:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
			] 05:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Please stop changing links in the evidence section of your RfC==
	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.
	] 20:35, 13 July 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)

			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.
	==missing sun myth ==
			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)
	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.
	] 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

			its tjhe same cpmplaint.
	: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. ] 07:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
			] 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)

			,look athte origional link, the one i havnt touched, its clear that i removed only unsigned comments. and thats the point.
	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.
	] 07:51, 14 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 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. ] 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			wht the hell? when dud that happen? that s it, im changing , password.
	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.
	] 07:53, 14 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 08:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			When did what happen? ] 08:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
	===rfc - sun motif===

			thus is gonnas ound reallystupid but i dont remember thisentire sectiono fmy talk page. andsincewhen do i spell that well?
	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.
	] 01:38, 17 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 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
	:I agree, but lets wait a while. If DreamGuy doesn't act up, i'll refrain from filing another RfC. --] 01:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
			] 08:19, 4 August 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)

			: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)
	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.
	] 01:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

			== Unsigned comments ==
	: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. --] 03:38, 17 July 2005 (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.
	:You don't have to listen to me, but I suggest avoiding DreamGuy and not returning his calls. And take a look at the ] article, nice redirect :) --] 03:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
			(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)
	::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...

			==agrravating cicrumstance==
	] 03:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

			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)
	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)
			] 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)
	==lillith==

			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)
	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.
	] 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

			fairs fair. ill be on my toes.
	:You can help us to help you, by including a link to the article. I guess you mean ]. When you answer this comment, you will see that I enclosed used two square brackets on each side of the article name. ] 14:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
			] 09:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Problems==
	::: sorry, i was reallytred when i posted that, id just gotten homoe from work
			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)
	] 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 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)
	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.")
			] 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).
	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.

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

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

			== why?==
	statistically, it was bound to happen... thanks for helping and explaining it.
			why did you reert my edit to the steve jobs article? what i wrote is true.
	] 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
			] 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.,,,,
	While I agree with Khaosworks, I think in ] "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. ] 00:18, 15 July 2005 (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)
	== ] ==
			::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==
	As far as I know I am the only Wikipedian who owns livestock. We have a beef cow-calf operation.
			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.
	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.
			] 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

			==RFC stuff==
	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.
			''"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! ==
	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.

			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)
	My two cents. Balance.

			sorry sabout that, got a little antzy...
	] Co., ] 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
			] 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			== Arbitration Committee case opening ==

			] has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to ]. Thank you. -- ] ] 22:06, 4 August 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!
	] 02:49, 15 July 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.
	: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? ] 04:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
			] 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)

			== Congratulations ==
	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.
	] 04:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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

			Thanks! hope everthings all ] !
	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."
	] 04:57, 15 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 19:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


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

			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?
	: 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.
			] 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
	: 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. ] 15:24, 15 July 2005 (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.
	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.
	] 15:29, 15 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 22:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

			deleted Dreamguys comments AGAIn, althoug you have already ruined wikipedia for yet another newb.
	: 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 ] 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. ] 15:53, 15 July 2005 (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)

			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>.
	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.
	] 22:01, 15 ~~July~~ 2005 (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)
	: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? ] 23:00, 15 July 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... ] 10:18, August 6, 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. ] 23:18, 15 July 2005 (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)

			: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)
	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.
	] 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	Gabriel, I offered a ], 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. - ] 00:38, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

			thank you very much , friday. as am email adedress, i use fennecs.forever@gmail.com mostly ( if i can just rememberthe password)
	the comprimise reduced what i put to one word.
	] 01:04, 16 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 23:28, 5 August 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.~~ - ] 01:28, 2005 ~~July~~ 16 (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)

			: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)
	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. ] Co., ] 02:23, 16 July 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)
			::: 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)

			:::: 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)
	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.
	] 02:40, 16 July 2005 (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)
	: ''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). ] Co., ] 17:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

			== Thanks! ==

			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
	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.
	] 03:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

			== This is very disappointing ==
	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 Seattle] 03:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

			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).
	==Thanks!==
	Thanks for standing up for fairness! ] 05:09, 15 July 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. ] ] ] 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
	i try.
	] 05:11, 15 July 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)
	== Cognition's page ==

			i forgive as surely as the tides come back, no worries man.
	If you'd care to join the discussion, it's at ]. ] 14:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
			] 04:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Your feelings about wolf hunting==

			::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)
	Message for you at ]. ] 11:49, July 16, 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?
	== On wolf hunting edits ==
			] 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)
	Just so you know, I found 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. ] 21:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

			from hiswords, he aint comin back. notyour fault tho. ... get my email?
	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.
	] 23:48, 16 ~~July~~ 2005 (UTC)		] 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Responsibility and compromise==
	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. ] 00:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

			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.
			#]. 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==

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

			: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)
	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. ] 00:33, July 17, 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)
	as you wish
	] 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	== ~~Re: read the VFD~~ ==		==A discussion==
			Gabriel, we need to sit down and have a ''discussion'' about this, okay? ] 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

			==Khulhy/Ketrovin==
	''and see that tis ubn nessessary and it all stems from one users inaprpriate edits. (dreamguy went aganist consensus)
	] 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.

			You really, ''really'' disappoint me. --] 22:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
	:There is no situation in which an edit war is an appropriate response to anything on Misplaced Pages, including this one. ] 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

			== Ketrovin, Khulhy, Gavin the Chosen... ==

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

			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.
	Did you actually read the notice on the article ] that said
			--] 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

	DO NOT CHANGE THIS ARTICLE INTO A REDIRECT DURING THE VFD

			==.==
	?

			==Gabrielsimon is now using the name ]==
	You may not do this, it violates VFD policy. The article is now locked from editing. ] 07:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
			Gabriel has switched names. If you are looking for him, go there. ] 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

			==Serial probation==
	== ] and its VFD ==
			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==
	'''''DO NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES DURING A VFD.'''''

			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)
	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)

			==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)

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

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	moot means pointless, doenst it?
			] 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)
	] 10:56, 17 July 2005 (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)