Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 23 July 2005

whats sock puppeting? Gabrielsimon 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts pretending they are different people. ~~~~ 17:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

link labelled "1" on the other page, not my work, i was reverting it, and was planning on modifying it, but never got the chance to. Gabrielsimon 14:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Once or even twice, I think the community would disregard. Based on a review of your talk page, you seem to have frequent and repeated run-ins with the Misplaced Pages community standards. I'm just an editor, but I perceive a clear pattern of disruption. There is a point where credulity becomes stretched at accepting the idea that you 'made an honest mistake', especially after so many transgressions. I am not an admin or spokesman, just a fellow editor sharing my perception of the situation. - Chairboy 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

as for links 4, 5, 6, this was the truth i was putting in, and i even tried to make it sound NPOV, other people just didnt like it. Gabrielsimon 14:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think those are covered under the 'Original research' element of the rfc, not npov. - Chairboy 14:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

its not origional reerch. check around , youll see. Gabrielsimon 20:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

--It is this sort of comment that I find particularly frustrating. You have done much the same thing on the Vampire and Werewolf pages--people, including me, have challenged your sourcing and you make these coy little responses like "check around; you'll see." Do you actually understand what an encyclopedia _is?_ PROVIDE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES if you are asked to back up your assertions. Your edits seem to continually degrade the quality of Misplaced Pages as a factual reference. If you want to advance your own POV and independent positions, you will find the Internet abounds in resources for that sort of work. Misplaced Pages is not one of them.--Craigkbryant 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Responses to Outside view 1

Moved from the project page:

theres a policey about aboidingthe use ofthe word terrorist that i was trying to go by. Gabrielsimon 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Citing the wikipedia policy you are attempting to follow can sometimes help. I don't know if you did in this case or not, but in the future it could help you. Either way, you can't break one policy, such as NPOV, to follow another. FuelWagon 23:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The policy Gabriel is referrring to is Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. It would take an intentional misreading of that page to conclude that the word "terrorist" is inappropriate in all cases. It's true that use of the term is often disputed, but few would argue that the 9/11 attackers were anything but terrorists. Rhobite 00:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

additional comments

FWIW, Gabrielsimon months back removed the word terrorist from Timothy McVeigh after seeing that someone else who was doing so had posted onto my talk page to complain when I put it back. (GS tracks my talk page, and, when someone else has a conflict with me, he often joins up with that person.) When I took the time to explain to him who exactly McVeigh was and what he had done, GabrielSimon then turned around and got into an edit war with the other person, actually restoring terrorist when the other person took it out (resulting in a near block for 3RR but one of his reverts in the 24 hours was a revert on himself so they tossed that one out). I remember this clearly because this is perhaps the only time GS ever agreed with me on any issue, especially since a number of the disagreements seemed to be doing exactly opposite what I did no matter what it was (for example, he has admitted to reverting a name change to an article not because he disagreed that the new title was better but because he didn;t want me to prevail in a conflict with someone else). I am actually disappointed to hear that he has apparently gone back to revert inclusion of the word terrorist in articles in which it is not really disputed by anyone except those who cannot understand the guideline. DreamGuy 05:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

youll note that , if it took a while, id do agree with you on the missing sun issue, tho i beleive i took to long... if youd allow, id like to try turning over a new leaf as it were, all grudges, justand not, left behind seems ok? Gabrielsimon 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see a new leaf. However, this revert concerns me. There is a discussion on the Talk: Witchcraft that I'm confident you're aware of, having already participated in it. PWhittle has made a good case. You have not answered his points. Why would you make yet another revert with no summary but "rv" and no discussion on the talk page? Friday 01:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

as i have likly said before, tjhe word and idea of witch was not of an origion that is in the american continant , it is a european contiant, and any thoughts to show that it wasnt are misinterpretations and mistranslations. id have left out the mention of the american continents entirely, but i comprimised and inserted " after contact with Europe" instead... Gabrielsimon 01:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Continued reverting?

I'm not sure why you're continuing to revert so casually. In addition to the questionable Witchcraft revert mentioned above which you have still not IMO coherently explained, you're now reverting here. I'm not saying you've broken the 3RR or anything, and I hope that you don't, but I think you should consider being less aggressive in your reverts. Friday 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)