Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DreamGuy (talk | contribs) at 22:36, 31 July 2005 (→Sure, I can talk to you here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Older talk can be found in archive1.

• • Old talk can be found in .**

archive 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gabrielsimon/archive3 i hope i did that right

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

Witchcraft

Please see Talk:Witchcraft#References_for_post-Columbian_origin_of_witch-accusations. Friday 00:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

post colombian is the only way, becasue of the simple fact that the word and its comnnotations are european in origion. Gabrielsimon 00:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, gabriel, but that makes no sense. That's like claiming that there was no meat in North America until Europeans arrived because the word "meat" is European. They had meat, they just called it by a different name, but the concept was exactly the same. Same with witches. A lare number of scholarly sources have been given proving this, yet all you do is claim that it isn't possible? Why no actually read the books and websites that were pointed out to you instead of just declaring yourself right and ignoring everyone else? DreamGuy 19:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

my beef is really with te with trials bit, most of the time, there were no execcutiopns, no matter how bad the offending magic user was ( according to hat evidance i can find in oral hustories) the worst thing thath appened was a banishment. tho those were usually temporairy... might it be good to procide words that tend to tranlaste into "Witch"? Gabrielsimon 08:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Thanks for your edit summary. As a result, although I removed the King James reference, I changed the topic sentence to show the list is for "Smith's works" - not just LDS scriptures. I hope that reduces the confusion for everyone. Peace. WBardwin 05:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Following

Please understand, it's not that I'm "following you around". We have several of the same articles on our watchlists, I suspect. But, you need to understand: the RFC on you means that other editors may be scrutinizing your edits. I'm not trying to harass you, so I won't post here anymore. However I won't simply give up on editing articles either. Friday 05:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

you really need to stop pestering me. Gabrielsimon 06:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Fartbag

He's been blocked for 24 hours. --khaosworks 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

i do hope i was not out of line. Gabrielsimon 09:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, he was pretty obviously a vandal. --khaosworks 09:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your characters

Yes, they would be up for VfD quick as a heartbeat if you did, for non-notability. --khaosworks 12:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

what about after i started publishing the series? Gabrielsimon 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Same thing. Misplaced Pages is not the place for anything that is not already established or spoken of by other sources. No original research, no news accounts, and most of all, no advertising. We talk about stuff that can be sourced, and that other people are discussing already. --khaosworks 12:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

well it would just be so that people would get it right.... i dislike it when people get things wrong about what i do... search for " simply terran" for a short story of mine... you might like it.. ( its only about apage and a half) Gabrielsimon 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I can only tell you that creating these articles as you propose would probably cause you greater frustration in the end when people send them for speedy deletion. I suggest you engage your energies elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, or write these character articles on other on-line encyclopedias that will accept such articles. --khaosworks 13:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Several users provide a link to their website or blog on their user page, or post an image of their artwork. Just don't turn it into a gallery or an obvious self-promotion page. Your user page poetry, for example, is quite acceptable. NoSeptember 20:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Lilith

Hi Gabriel,

I hesitate to get involved, and obviously I know that yourself and User:DreamGuy don't necessarily get along, but do you really value the edits by User:69.194.72.40 to the Lilith article? Most of their edits yesterday, such as this, were pretty poor and self-aggrandizing. I can't see any reason to think that the web site they reference from the Lilith is in any way credible - some of the quotes there are quite obviously wrong. -- Solipsist 06:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

no, that users edits are mosly rather weak, and had i the time earlier today i would have fixed them , which is why i kept putting them back in, i felt they were salvagable... sigh, but i didnt getthe chance to fix it up, because whenever i tried, i either had to put it back , or was called away for money making stuff... Gabrielsimon 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. In that case I suspect the better approach is for me to revert it back to how it was, and if you can find anything salvageable in the edits you can pick them out of the edit history when you get time. -- Solipsist 07:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

ceretainly. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your message

lil help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon Gabrielsimon 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried, but there wasn't much I could do as so many editors signed against you. In the end I suggested a compromise.Dbraceyrules 14:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope your not mad at me, but that was the only solution that seemed plausible. Dbraceyrules 00:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

as i have said before, i do not get angry, i feel its beneath me to do so. so no worries. Gabrielsimon 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

otherkin

Yo. What's with the deletion of entire sections of the article? Vashti 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

medical perspectives is origional research, according to slimvirgin. also i archived the talk. Gabrielsimon 10:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I can talk to you here

I can talk to you here if you like. As you might have seen previously on your talk page, I'd stopped leaving you messages here because you've deleted many of them, and said I was annoying and my messages were useless. From your recent edits on Mysticism, I see that you're not following 1RR. Other editors have complained of similiar failures to observe it.

This is an optional rule; I don't believe anyone's forcing you to follow it. If you've decided not to, I think you should at least say so. The last we'd heard from you on the subject was that you were agreeing to it. Friday 20:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

i do wait like 12 hours betwen edits ( vbecause i do them before and after i sleep) however, mystisim is sopmewhen you have to look at everything thats going on, i keep chanigng things back to how on thetalk page things were decided to be, can you not see that the word, by definition divinity is more then enough for all divine beings? (and i was having and am having horrible times, checkl the section of my user page titled lately... (( also, pleae readt he poetry of mine section and tell me what you think))) Gabrielsimon 21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the talk page, yes. There were at least 2 editors I saw other than me who thought God and divinity should both be included. Maybe I missed a whole bunch of people saying they didn't both belong, but to me it doesn't seem like there's a clear consensus against both. However, the right thing to do when someone changes your edit it to talk about it, don't just change it back. In fact, the one-revert rule is: "if anyone reverts your edits then leave it in its reverted (ie, original) state and discuss it on the talk page."

Notice that even though I and other editors think both "God" and "divinity" belong in Mysticism, I'm not instantly changing it back. There's an editor who has already given a good explanation of why they do not want both, so we're discussing it on the talk page in a civilized manner.

Here's a key thing to learn: if you're frequently reverting, other editors may be more quick to undo your reverts. I try to only revert if I think something is clearly wrong or against consensus, and can't be fixed. I always try to explain WHY I'm reverting. Better than reverting, is fixing the new edit to make it neutral and factual. Friday 21:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

yopu did miss a lot. most of my changea to that article, ifyou look ath te history are discutive or repariative in nature. Gabrielsimon 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say you've made no good edits to that article. I've seen you make good edits; I already know you can do it. I've seen you revert vandalism. These are Good Things. However, I am trying to say you just recently violated the 1RR on that article. I changed your edit. You reverted it back. I'm not saying you committed a terrible sin or anything, I'm just saying you haven't been following the rule you agreed to. If you don't want to agree to the rule anymore, nobody's forcing you. Friday 22:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I would point out that your agreement to follow 1RR was your one and only tiny concession to an RfC that showed numerous extensive violations of policy on your part. Going back on your agreement to do that one tiny thing would show you have made no attempt at all to learn from your mistakes and is more likely to escalate the arbitration case against you. DreamGuy 22:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)