This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Friday (talk | contribs) at 00:56, 7 July 2005 (3RR violation on Wolf). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old talk can be found in archive1.

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

You can always archive old talk (if you care to archive it) by copying the wikitext into a new page like User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive1 or something like that. Subpages are great.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

i dont actually know how to do that, but if you want to, feel free. thanks tho! Gabrielsimon 08:55, 16 Jun 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.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! Gabrielsimon 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

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. WBardwin 00:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quasi-vandalism

Just noting your contribution to Mormon...please be careful in the future. Thanks ~ Dpr 04:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Hi. I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Please see Talk:Mormon (society)#Mormons in popular culture. Tom Haws 14:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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! Storm Rider 21:59, 20 Jun 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. Storm Rider 01:23, 21 Jun 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. Storm Rider 01:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle and Misplaced Pages:No original research

Gabe, regarding the "vampire lifestyle" article; please see the "no original research" policy; 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 NPOV to improve the article. -- The Anome 00:03, Jun 22, 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for Comment page and assisting other editors to resolve their differences.

Thanks for your help. Tom Haws 20:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi, Gabriel. Just a note to let you know you aren't allowed to revert 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. Tom Haws 23:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

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. Storm Rider 01:14, 23 Jun 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. Storm Rider 29 June 2005 18:26 (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? Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 18:34 (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 Talk:God with the rest of the community as to why your edit should be placed in, assuming that you haven't already alienated them. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 01:24 (UTC)

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, User:MrWhipple, was not blocked so his 1 day blocking starts now.

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. Cburnett June 30, 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Curious

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 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:13 (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 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 03:15 (UTC)

edit summaries

Do not use misleading edit summaries; for example, characterizing the addition of questionable content as "reverting vandalism" is a misleading edit summary. If you persist in doing this, you may be blocked. Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 02:07 (UTC)

i removed the ape thing, and i undid the NON questionable ACTUAL quote. quoit being a baby. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)

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. Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 02:12 (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. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

George W. Bush

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. Jtkiefer July 1, 2005 02:41 (UTC)

seems fair. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Bush protected

The Bush page is protected now. Please do not edit it until the problems have been resolved on the Talk page. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)

the procsdure is as folows - discuss, then delete, so leave it be as i have put it, okay?? Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

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. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:08 (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? Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Breaking the 3RR twice in 3 days...you need to understand this rule better. A disagreement between you and other others is not vandalism. Cburnett July 1, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Edits

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 God and George W. Bush 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, Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Discussion

Please see: Talk:God#Monism_and_dualism_as_.22notions_derived_from_witchcraft.22

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. Fuzheado | Talk 1 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Offensive edits? (reposted after deletion)

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

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. Friday 3 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Re: sources

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? Fuzheado | Talk 3 July 2005 07:02 (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 http://www.genremagazine.com. Spelled with "magizine" it does not work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Wolf

To say this practise is both cowardly and unfair 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. El_C 6 July 2005 03:29 (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/ Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

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 citations, we can integrate that into the article. Disturbing. El_C 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

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

that ones a bit biased, but its a starting point... Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Yeah, good start; 14,000+ signatories to the petition, that isn't insiginificant. El_C 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

=deleted comments with no usefull wording

whoever adds this now deleted section sould pay attention. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 04:06 (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. Friday 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

Stop editing my user page

Once again, I must ask you to stop editing my user page. Friday 6 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

if you would kindly remove insulting words from it, then sure. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:33 (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.

Please review these links:

1. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not
2. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

If you abide by site policy, you might enjoy volunteering here, but if you don't then you could quickly wear out your welcome. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:50 (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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Please Use the Talk Pages

Please use the talk pages before you make (a) drastic deletions to a page (your edits on Jospeh Smith) or (b) controversial changes to a page (your edits on wolves). We want to make sure that Misplaced Pages is a good resource for everyone, and everyone has to play fair and nice. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:13 (UTC)

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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

You need to understand our NPOV policy. Have you read it yet? This edit betrays a lack of understanding: you're being less than neutral here.

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'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? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

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. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:31 (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) Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:32 (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? - grubber 2005 July 6 20:38 (UTC)

Have you read Misplaced Pages:NPOV 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. Friday 6 July 2005 20:40 (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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

• The Holocaust 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 Jew 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 Wolf 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. - grubber 2005 July 6 20:56 (UTC)

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?

thats exactly what happens.

Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 20:59 (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. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:08 (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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

• 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. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:20 (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. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

• 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. - grubber 2005 July 6 21:32 (UTC)

Another Warning

You are in violation of the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) again at Wolf; please discuss your edits at the specified talk page Talk:Wolf 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?).

"Chronic offenders 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..."

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. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

liar, if anyone "valued" anything i had to say they wouldnt delete it outright, which is what they are doing. Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

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 NPOV.

That said, I don't appreciate being called a liar, as I value my integrity. Name calling (Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks) is not an appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior. You may want to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Policies_and_guidelines, Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, and Misplaced Pages:Civility. Please continue to contribute. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:20 (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. Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:24 (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.

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. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

3RR violation on Wolf

Hello, I feel it is only appropriate that I inform you I reported a 3RR violation on your part, for the wolf article. Also, you'll probably be pleased to hear that I won't be posting to your talk page again. I fear I've become too frustrated with the situation to be entirely objective. And, while my intentions were good, I don't think my advice at this point could possibly be beneficial. Although we've had our disagreements over a few edits, please be assured it's nothing personal. My concern was over the quality of your edits, not your own personal opinions, whatever they may be. Friday 7 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)