User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive2

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

It is HIS page though. Its called the First amendment.--Kross July 8, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

so? im not american. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

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. [1]

Please review these links:

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
2. Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:NPOV yet? You're not getting the concept here. Wikipedia 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 [to the three-revert rule] 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 Wikipedia - 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 (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) is not an appropriate Wikipedia behavior. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and Wikipedia: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

I have blocked you for 24 hours due to a WP:3RR violation. This is not the first time, but I hope it will be the last time anybody has to block you for this. Do note, however, that the next time you are reported for a 3RR (and this is verfied), I will extend the block to 3 days. Deleting this won't help, as I will remember - this is merely so you can't say you weren't warned. --khaosworks July 7, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

more vanals... joy!

so it seems im g etting vadlazised more now...

i wonder why and i wonder who...  id really like some rasons why, if yonder vandals are listening.

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

Playing nice

You really have to stop this provocative, antisocial and confrontational approach and figure out what you are doing and what you want out of this project. If you can't play nice with others and want to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm afraid you may want to look elsewhere, because that attitude is incompatible with the goals we're trying to achieve here.

I've been watching your activities and your clashes with other people, although I have not entered the fray except to enforce Wikipolicy like the 3RR violations. It is obvious to me from the conflicts that you are having that many people have an issue with you. And if many people are having an issue with you - over the course of several incidents - you have to start considering that the problem may not be with them but with you instead. Now, you may be within your rights to remove stuff within your own talk pages (although this is debatable), but you should extend that courtesy to other people's talk pages as well. This sort of behaviour cannot continue, or else you will find yourself on the end of an RfC or even worse, an RfArb, in which case your fate is effectively sealed.

I'm not threatening you with that, in case you get that impression... merely a word to the wise. I am, however, going to suggest to those people who do have a problem with you that an RfC is an avenue they may wish to pursue. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:37 (UTC)

he was treating other people like crap, and hes been doingthis for a long time, so i tohught to show him what it felt like, so he might stop that.

as for other things, its a case by case thing. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

Ever hear of two wrongs don't make a right? You cannot keep doing this. You are jeopardising your own ability to be an editor here. I'm trying to give you good advice here, but if you are not willing to consider it, then there's really nothing I can do to help you. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:44 (UTC)

i see your point, dont think me unreasonable. you are quite nice for speaking ofthis instead of taking rash action, for thati thank you. i shall try to see if i can make myself better , in this place.

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

Just as a note, don't think I'm taking sides on this. I'm not saying DreamGuy, for example, is blameless, but he's not the first person you've come to blows with, and you've been cited for 3RR three times in the last couple of weeks and that's a hell of a track record. I'm glad that you're thinking about it, at least. Hopefully the situation will improve all around. You might also think about taking a little break from editing, just to let tempers cool, and then you can come back with more of a fresh start rather than having an overly tense atmosphere around you right now. --khaosworks July 8, 2005 11:55 (UTC)

one of the reaosns i kept getting 3rr is because of the way i had panned to add things, i thought it wuld be good to add something, then come back and add to it, and so on, but psomeone kept removing the incomplete materials, and i kept re adding, then wanting to add more... and so on and so on... guessi shuld finsih sonething, then just paste itin....

Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Just in case you don't check my talk page

Okay Gabrielsimon, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I know you're not American. But I am. And I know what my country believes in and flies. And just because it's not on the news, doesn't mean the flags still aren't flying, and that people don't cry when they think of the military. The news doesn't always cover the truth, you know, regardless of what we hope. The vast majority of Americans are extremely patriotic and love their country, even if they disagree with who's in power (which is what the news covers) and the policies. It's the country they love, and saying the words "September 11" is enough to incite patriotism in the hearts of everyone. It's still going, and it's not short lived. That's like saying the happiness of the end of World War II was short lived, because the news stopped covering the celebrations.Stanselmdoc 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism on George W. Bush. You've done a good wikipedia deed today. Friday 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

i intend to make it the first ( not sure if it is the first but for the sake of the phrasing...) of many more. please to restart an awuantancship if you like. Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see this type of edit. Many more would be most excellent. BTW, on the Homosexuality topic.. there is an article for Same-sex marriage, so thing specifically related to marriage probably work best there. Friday 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

i simply thought it mighjt be worth mentioning in the homosexuality atrticle t hat canada has legalized same gneder marriage. :-D Gabrielsimon 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

And, dude, start using a spell checker. The occasional typo is okay, but unless you can type entire sentences without obvious mistakes, no one's going to take you seriously. If you don't have a word processor like Microsoft Word, you can download TextPad. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy

Well, GabrielSimon, DreamGuy is once again the talk between us. Several users have gotten together to try to come to a consensus with him, and I have personally asked administrators what to do. Please help. Horatii 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, long time no see (30 April). I thought you were angry at me or something because you never responded to my messages. Take care. Horatii 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

check out the RFC page ,a and add your testimonial to where i asked for him to be connemnted on... also, no, i aint mad. i dont get mad, (not that theres a reason to be mad at you) Gabrielsimon 02:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What's an RFC page? No. I really didn't think you were mad but just a little teed off. I was reading your talk page and I think it is really funny how you said "I'm not American" to someone talking about the First Amendment lol.Horatii 02:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks! and its the request for comments page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users

find him menitoned ( by me) under individual users, and feel free to add your two cents/ Gabrielsimon 02:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I did. And I added some of his specific quotes to highlight his rudeness.Horatii 03:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

139.55.53.68

I saw you reverted vandalism by 139.55.53.68 at George W. Bush. I believe this is the same vandal I and several other users fought yesterday. I wanted to give you a word of advice: be carful of what you revert, yesterday he almost got me blocked for 3RR because he picked up on an existing edit war and tricked me into reverting edit war content believing it was vandalism. Just thought I should give you a heads up. -- Essjay · Talk 15:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! isnt it amazing how misdirected idiotic intellect seems to be? Gabrielsimon 15:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:DreamGuy Again

I have no idea what that administrator was talking about, so decided to post some more warnings on DreamGuy's site. I told him that several users are recommending bans. Take care. Horatii 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I do, and I did as User:Carnildo asked. See here for what I have done, and I think the preceding link is an example of a "diff". Cheers, and high hopes for the conflict, friends Horatii and Gabrielsimon, elvenscout742 15:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at his RfC now, I formatted it according to RfC guidelines so that admins don't just ignore our complaint. I moved all of your comments to the discussion page, we should rewrite them and enter them in "Evidence of disputed behavior" and "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" whichever is applicable. Please use differences such as this: [2] That particular one is where Dreamguy writes "VfD is a freaking joke" in the history comment. --AI 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2

I tried to read this RfC, but was put off by the formatting. I think it would be a good idea to use the regular format. --Canderson7 22:23, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, take Canderson's advice. The trouble of making such a page was what put me off making one myself earlier, actually, as well as the Wiki-guidelines to go through a series of steps and to act with civility, which is impossible with DreamGuy.

Anyway, I'm here to point out to you that when Carnildo asked for "diffs", I think he meant something like what I have added ([3]). Ooh, and there's another one to use as an example. I'm going to start adding to that page on a daily basis, with both updates and old news on DreamGuy's reprehensible behaviour, until it is actually and finally reprehended by someone in power.

elvenscout742 15:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Solipsist we have to remove the Recommendations section.[4] I moved it to the discussion page.

okay, i get it. Gabrielsimon 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the RFC. I have read all the complaints and the references you put up and I will be willing to go through them one by one with you (when I have time) if you'd like. My view of the whole dispute(s) is that no one is particularly blameless here. It started badly, both sides slung mud, and it has snowballed - if you'll pardon the mixing of metaphors. I have seen much worst edit wars, and based on ideological differences, than this one. This appears to be a personality conflict, and in any case none of this warrants a permanent ban on anybody. Censuring everyone would be a more equitable solution. If anything, everyone involved needs to take a chill pill and read Wikipedia:Civility. --khaosworks 01:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd be all for that - I don't like having enemies or arguments - if it weren't for the obvious fact that DreamGuy is never going to change his ways. He is the only truly guilty party here - he will keep enforcing his narrow PoV and keep being ucivil to other users who happen to disagree with him unless something is done. I just want what's best for Wikipedia. I'd be willing to apologise to him for all the hassle I've supposedly been giving him if he'd do the same and stop enforcing that PoV of his. But he never will. elvenscout742 14:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i am very civil asfar as i am aware, though i can not say the same forthe person i am nw hoping gets banned for consistant rudeness. Gabrielsimon 01:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

it will be re created becasue it was going to be certified today, o impatient one. Gabrielsimon 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC got deleted (by User:Radiant! as per the normal procedure for uncertified RfCs. Please do not re-create it, at least on basis of the same complaint. jni 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR Warning

posted to both users

Please note WP:3RR. You are reminded of this in connection with Missing sun motif.

~~~~ 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR reporting

Please report 3RR incidents to WP:AN/3RR. That will be dealt with faster, since I may not always be on-line all the time (though it might seem so!). --khaosworks 22:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Comments go on the talk page"

It says at the bottom of the page that: All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. The comment that you keep removing is related to an endorsement. --Canderson7 01:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

the comment was being moved, and i copied the relevent text, so lets just remove it, shall we? Gabrielsimon 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours as a result of a violation of the Three revert rule on the article Mythology. Please refrain from edit warring when you return. Thank you. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

in my defence

thats not fair, i was correcting my own spelling mistakes! Gabrielsimon 20:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

why must people pick on me? i would ap[preciate it if someone would unblock me for this unjustified block. look at the actual edits, its my bad spelling i was trying to correct, someones being to literal... and hey, since im blocked, how can i edit this page? Gabrielsimon 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

must be a glitch or something, but i do enjpoy being able to tell the world that this time i do not think i did anytrhing wrong... everyone whosseen my edits knows i m a horrible speller, and when i was donewith an edit, i noticed something i did wrong, so i edited to correct it, then i noticed i hit the wrong key, so i edited to fixthat, all of this was after a revert, a while back on an unrealted matter, so yes i did modify a page four times, but the last three were really one large attempt.... o im gonna be quiet now.....

Gabrielsimon 20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i really am startng to wish people would comesee my side of things... i really didnt think that ixing my own errors was against policey Gabrielsimon 20:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In the diffs posted, you were putting back in the same content that another user was removing. This is not fixing your own spelling mistakes, this is a revert war. Friday 20:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

no, if you READ the changes it is as i said. Gabrielsimon 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is here : [5]. The diffs seem pretty clear to me. Remember, even if you're sure you're right, the rules still exist. To avoid being banned for rule violations, maybe you should self-impose more stringent rules on yourself than the community requires. I personally find the one revert rule helpful. Friday 20:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

it would have stopped at two, but i noticed spelling mistakes of minbe, so i edited them, which isthe third, then i noticed i accidentally spelled sky father as sky gather, so the fourth edit was trying to fixthat, see? trying to not look to much a fool for typos, i wished to fix iut, i dont see that as blockable. Gabrielsimon 20:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Gabriel: The edits that you made were not spelling mistakes. They were removals of certain list items in the Mythology article. The following diffs were copied from Administrator's noticeboard, 3RR section:

Three revert rule violation on Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:14, 10 July 2005
• 1st revert: 22:58, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:21, 11 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:30, 11 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:48, 11 July 2005

As you can see, these edits are not spelling changes. Judging from the block log, and the other messages left by other users on your talk page, you have violated 3RR five times within the last month. Clearly, you are aware of this rule, and the consequences. When you return from this block, please discontinue from these silly revert wars, and edit constructively. The next time, your block will be at least three days, and possibly longer. On a side note, the new blocking sytax lets you edit only your talk page, so communication between users and admins can occur. If you have any other questions, email me here. Regards, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 20:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

also if you check the DATE codes, one is in a differnt day, and three are on the 11th, so on THOSE grounds, this block is unfair. Gabrielsimon 20:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR rule covers edits in a 24 hours period, since this is an international project. Your first revert was 22:58, 10 July, and the fourth was 22:48, 11 July. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 21:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

you have to think from MY time zone, and thus its not fair to do otherwise. Gabrielsimon 21:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lucky duck

You should be flattered. Some of the world's best programmers hove dropped everything, just to make it possible for you to talk while suspended from this project. (Please fulfill our faith in you :-) Uncle Ed 20:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

World's best programmers? Surly they are good at what they do, but wiki-programming is a fairly simple type of programming. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

i do appreciate it, but please do look at the date codes on the edits that hes citing, one of the four is o a different day, which makes it the three on the eleventh and ( as it seems) one on the tenth, which doesnt vilate the rules. Gabrielsimon 20:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

While I personally do not care too much for Gabrielsimon, it does seem like you are screwing him out of 24 hours over a mere 10 minutes. His last revert was only within the 24 hour span by 10 minutes. Seems overly strict. I understand Gabrielsimon has had many issues in the past (some of them with me), but to punish a guy over this... seems a little absurd. Are we soon going to be enforcing the 3RR down to the second? Not really sure what else to say. --Lord Voldemort 21:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. However, after several previous bans for 3RR, he really ought to be extra careful. Also, GS, the rule covers a 24-hour period as has been explained above. What time zone you're in makes no difference at all. Yes, 24 hours is pretty arbitrary, but the line must be drawn somewhere. Try the one revert rule. It's not enforced, but it's not a bad idea either. Friday 22:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

im ALREADY trying to be carefull, as it is. Gabrielsimon 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides, as ive said, from my clock, i did nothing wrong, if im supposed to look at some other TZ instead of mine for when 24 hours is over etc, no one ever told me of it before, thus this is still unfair. Gabrielsimon 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand the rule? It's about 24 hours of elapsed time. Time zones are completely irrelevant. Friday 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

my interpretation was within a 24 hour period, as in when the rol over gits, its all fair game again. thatswhatthewording says to me, and so thats how i acted. Gabrielsimon 22:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: it is also important to understand the spirit of the 3RR. The point of it is to avoid revert wars that are a waste of time and energy. They achieve nothing. The only way to resolve a conflict is to discuss it on the talk page, and if that fails, seek mediation. Waiting until 24 hours has elapsed and then reverting again does not resolve the problem: the other editor will just come back and change the article again.

From my review of the information provided above, the "three reverts" that you made were not related to typos, but to links to three articles that the other editor -- rightly or wrongly -- was deleting. Ground Zero 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

that particular other editor refuses discussion on anything with me, or anyone else who could proove him wrong. discussion with such .... stubborn, opinionated behaviour is , well proovejn impossible. Gabrielsimon 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That might be true, but then persisting in edit wars is not going to fix anything. I will look into Dreamguy's behavior, but he still didn't break 3RR.

About the concerns that your last revert was made 10 min short of the 24 hours of elapsed time, I did take that into account. However, you've been blocked many times for 3RR violations. I was still lenient: since you've had multiple violations, I could block you for several days. The 10 min contributed to my decision to block you for 24 hrs. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 22:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

from my time zone it was well within the next 24 hours. this is why i didnt see a problem. Gabrielsimon 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon, my suggestion is to be more careful in your edits before hitting save, if spelling was an issue. Ed suggested using a text editor to you a number of days ago. I'd echo his suggestion. While this block may not seem fair, this type of behavior takes up a lot of time in general on the wiki. Given your history you have a lot of people watching and rooting for you (and some watching to see if your behavior will change), but you have to be strict on yourself because of that same history. Be more careful. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 23:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

ill do my best. Gabrielsimon 23:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing Sun myth

While we are still in the right, I suggest we request that the name of the original article be changed back and allow your new one (which, yes, is a violation of policy) to be deleted. Until then, I would ask that you follow my lead and stop undoing DreamGuy's changes to other pages. I would like to keep our little conflict with DreamGuy (and, yes, DreamGuy himself) away from those other articles if at all possible. elvenscout742 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

then please doso. itwould be nice to have some admins tell him to stick to what he knows, ( which evidently, is NOT mythology) but i will follow as requested. Gabrielsimon 22:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You should understand what admins are here for. I found out by reading Wikipedia:Administrators. A couple key sentences: "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator, provided that they do not falsely claim to be one, even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. ..it should be noted that administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users."

This means, among other things, that resolving disputes is everyone's responsibility, not just administrators. If you disagree with another editor, it's up to you to come to some kind of workable arrangement. Yes, sometimes other people, including admins, become involved. But requiring third party help should be the exception, not the rule. Friday 23:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

intersting, but for the sake of this argument , sort of moot, becasue dreamguy refuses to have any conversations with me, ifi ask him ANYTHING , hell claim harrassment, and cry ( not literlaly, butyou get the idea) hes not the sort who seems to be able to comprehend when hes wrong. (which is often) Gabrielsimon 23:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

also would someone put on the missing sun mytrh VFD page that i vote keep, but delete missing sun motif, becasue sim[ply, we cant have DreamGuy gettinghis way when violating policey like he is. Gabrielsimon 22:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC DreamGuy-2

Hi Gabriel,

Just to let you know, that I think the RfC was prematurely deleted this afternoon. It looks like it was caused by a misunderstanding on a minor technicality over certifying. In anycase, we've got the page restored back to how it was earlier today.

Since you helped put the RfC together, I'm assuming that you are a principle in the matter, in which case could you move your certifying signature up one section, to be underneath Horatii's.

But please also note, that this an RfC on an individual editor's behaviour. As such issues about your related dispute on the Missing Sun article are a separate matter. -- Solipsist 22:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)