Gabrielsimon

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:

• archive1
• archive2
• archive3
• archive4

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, [1] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 [2] which shows you deleting this link [3] 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 [[User:Anon|Anon]] 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 Wikipedia. Being permanently frustrated is part of the experience. File:Meh.gif. Check your e-mail by the way. I sent you something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and in articles we should regard Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. — 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia 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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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: [[4]]) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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, Wikipedia 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:

1. 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.
2. 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 Wikipedia "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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)