User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive3

fair game

Nothing at Wikipedia is "fair game". This is not a sporting event, or a hunting expedition. It's a serious project to build a comprehensive encyclopedia of all the world's knowledge. All this fussing over whose Wikipedia:rights have been violated is nonsense.

I want to know what articles you plan to improve, Gabriel. And what improvements you plan to make to them. Stop whining, and start planning - like an adult. You can do it. And you must, if you intend to remain a volunteer at this project. Uncle Ed 11:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

for one , i was going to try to put some data on areial wolf hunting in the wolf article, tought as lose as i can get to cod , emotionless facts, it still seems emotional, just becasue of the facts themselves.... im prepping to go to work now, so ill get back to you with more. Gabrielsimon 20:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

missing sun myth

dreamGuy createsd a fork article missing sun motif and deleted the missing sun myth article against consensus and has been reverting my attempts to undo his actions that are against policey, but i have used up all my actions forthe day on that article, i would request assistance for m any intereted parties, if you would. Gabrielsimon 07:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Gabrielsimon, I did not create a "fork article" - I moved an article to a name that more accurately reflected its contents. When you decided to restore the content to the original name instead of having the article moved (not that it would happen, because the old name is wrong for two different reasons) you created a fork article. Worse than that, the VFD for the fork article clearly says that the fork should be removed and that it should be a redirect to the main article. You trying to restore the contents of the article to that name violates the consensus of the VfD, violates Wikipedia policy on forks, and is inherently just a bad move, and one you are clearly only doing to try to undo something I did, based upon your long history of wanting to harass me. You need to give it a rest. Your RfC is backfiring, and you could very easily end up getting into trouble yourself. Just stop taking actions out of spite and try to work with the other editors here instead of doing things your way just to do them your way. DreamGuy 07:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

themove you id was against consensus at the time according tothe talk page. and btw, nothing i do is out of spite, id like to think that i am a more evolved mind then that. i will stop editing pages to change the capitalization of godess now that i understnad, as an example. Gabrielsimon 07:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

as for harassment, i didnt, i simply asked a questiomn, you refused to answer, so i askedt he question again, becasue i really wanted to know what the answer was. i do not think that was harassment, it was never intended as such, butyour welcome to your own interpretations, i zuppose. Gabrielsimon 07:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

rfc - sun motif

what you added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 might be suitible as a se[parate RFC, to get better results. Gabrielsimon 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but lets wait a while. If DreamGuy doesn't act up, i'll refrain from filing another RfC. --AI 01:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be added to the same RFC. If you add it to a 3rd RFC this will be considered harassment, and be likely to result in arbitration against you, leading to a formal penalty. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

youll also note that its not lily that he wont " act up" its his modus operendii... also it might be good to npote that hes lying, a little higher in this page. Gabrielsimon 01:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have an understanding of how such people operate, an understanding 1,000,000 times more accurate than any pseudoscientific psychologist. Anyway, these spin doctors are very stupid to try their tricks in a medium such as Wikipedia where everything is intricately documented. --AI 03:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to listen to me, but I suggest avoiding DreamGuy and not returning his calls. And take a look at the Missing sun motif article, nice redirect :) --AI 03:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Redirect removed and article restored and protected. There is a VFD. Deleting artices involved in a VFD during the vfd is totally forbidden. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

you still shouldnt have hadused the word stupid...

Gabrielsimon 03:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what grounds a VFD is put up for. Anything may be VFD'd for any reason. The purpose is to determine the community consensus on what should be done with the article, not why. ~~~~ 10:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

lillith

is not the title of a God or godess worthey of capitalization? if so, please capitalize it in the Lillith articele, i hace used up all my actions today becasue of a stubborn editor who doesnt see this. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can help us to help you, by including a link to the article. I guess you mean Lillith. When you answer this comment, you will see that I enclosed used two square brackets on each side of the article name. Uncle Ed 14:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i was reallytred when i posted that, id just gotten homoe from work

Gabrielsimon 21:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"god" vs. "God"

In proper English usage, god is a not a title, it is a noun. As in "Zeus is a god," not "Zeus is a God." The uppercase God is only used when it is a proper noun (or proper name, if you prefer), as in the Judaeo-Christian God, or the pagan Goddess. To to say that a lunar deity is a God or Goddess is incorrect, because there is not such thing as "a God(ess)". It is either "a god(ess)", or "God(ess)" when you are using it as a proper name. As an example, it is permissible to say "God is the name given to the Christian god," or you can say, "The Christian God," (because in this context you are using it in the same you would say, "The Greek Zeus."

As another example, you never say, "He is a God." It is "He is a god," or "He is God." (The latter when referring to the Christian god, since it's the equivalent of saying, "He is Gabriel.")

Similarly, when you are talking of the "underworld" or the "Underworld", you have to distinguish between the use of the word as a noun and as a proper noun. In the case of Gilgamesh, the context of the sentence appears to use it as a noun instead of a proper noun, so lower case is appropriate. Unless Silverberg is actually using the word as the name of the place rather than as a descriptive noun, then Underworld is okay. Otherwise, "the underworld" is correct.

So DreamGuy is correct, and unfortunately, you are not, in this case. --khaosworks 07:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

statistically, it was bound to happen... thanks for helping and explaining it. Gabrielsimon 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabirelsimon, you now have had multiple editors tell you that you were wrong to capitalize Goddess... Why do you still insist upon changing it in the Lilith article? You are wrong, everyone has told you that you are wrong, you admitted you were wrong, yet you are still screwing the article up. What could possess you to do this? Please stop. DreamGuy 16:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

whats beeen made clear is capitalization is only there whentheres a title, so i capitalized Godess Of War. thats a title. Gabrielsimon

Only if it's an actual Sumerian title, as in if the Sumerians went around calling her "Goddess of War" as a name (as in, "Hey, Goddess of War!" as opposed to, "She is the goddess of war") rather than as a descriptive. Otherwise, you're just making it up. --khaosworks 22:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

an example is aries, Greek god Of War, they called him Aries, Goid OF War, simmilarly, it was Inanna, Godess Of War. formal titles etc. Gabrielsimon 22:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's Ares, the Greek of war, or even Ares, Greek god of war. To call him Ares, God of War is to attribute a title to him that the Greeks may or may not have had given him (he may have been their god of war, but did the Greeks title him God of War is what I'm trying to get at). Similarly, Inanna was the Sumerian goddess of love and war, but if her full title wasn't "Inanna, Goddess of Love and War", i.e. the designation was part of her name, then you're not on firm ground --khaosworks 22:51, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with Khaosworks, I think in Gilgamesh the King "underworld" (or, as I would have it, "Underworld") is being used as the name of a location to which dead souls go that exists in Mesopotamian mythology. I haven't read the stories, though, so I don't know. elvenscout742 00:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolf

As far as I know I am the only Wikipedian who owns livestock. We have a beef cow-calf operation.

I am of two minds about wolves. I see them occasionally. I appreciate Jim Brandenberg's work as a biologist and photographer, with regard to the wolf. They are beautiful creatures, and objectify wildness and freedom in a certain way.

On the other hand, they are also destructive, and I have sheep farmer friends who have problems with them. Wolves can, do, and have destroyed the livelihood of sheep farmers. They have an expansive range and cannot be fenced out, and the only effective means of control is to kill them. Many sheep farmers believe that wolves become sheep-specific predators in areas where sheep are present, and believe that the extent of this problem has gone unrecognized by government officials and scientists who have an agenda driven by the fantasy of a natural world where humanity is not present.

Wolves are no match for a cow, and in my area though present in small numbers they are not bold enough to try to take a calf away from the herd. Still, I can appreciate the pain and the sleepless nights and broken dreams of sheep farmers, particularly, who suffer the effects of their predation. If we ever lost a calf to one I too would kill any I see by any means possible. As a rule in the livestock business you end up seeing a lot of death, and that is especially true of the herdsmen I know in the sheep business. Some say lambs were put on this earth to find new ways to die. But it breaks the heart of a herdsmen to have to go out and shoot a lamb that's been mortally injured by a wolf; wolves care no more for the pain and suffering of lambs than the farmer cares for the pain and suffering of the wolf. Wolves can and do kill even if they are not hungry, and will often leave a dead carcass behind without eating any of the meat.

My two cents. Balance.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i used to spend a lot of time in the wilderness and i met quie a few wolves ( i had an intersting childhood) none of them ever killed without need, and as for farmers, well scare off a wolf should be easy, you dont have to KILL it. besides, what gives people the right to say, kill off entie populations of wolves just becasue they may lose a few thousand dollars... you sayt yo would slaughter all wolves you saw over the life of one calf? for shame! Gabrielsimon 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is all fascinating background material, but remember, we're trying to figure out how to describe aerial hunting of wolves, for an encyclopedia article. U.C. is giving the farmer's perspective. Gabriel, you love wolves. What should the article say? Uncle Ed 04:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

i beleive it should sasy how hunters routinly slaughter them in the name of thier own monetary gain and how other hunters slaughter them becausethey are trying to control the population, when, as a predetory species, wolves are self controlling, as population goes. it should also be noted that wolves themselves , when in packs, never kill except for food, some times, banished, lone wolves do kill for other reasons but that is extremily rare. the words i posted on your talk page aught to be inculded as well, becasue of the simple fact that areal wolf hunting is more or less cheating, for many reasons. i also do not think that just becasue people are prersent in any eco system entitles people to pretend that they are the masters of said eco system. Gabrielsimon 04:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the words i was referring to are : "Hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until, the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range, excecution style." Gabrielsimon 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Humans are not the masters of the world, we are the Guardians of Nature, thus senselewss destruction is a waste of human purpose. Gabrielsimon 14:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, GS. You're saying wolves hunt in packs?!? In other words, they gang up on other defenseless creatures?? That's terribly unfair. I thought they had more honour than that.

Do you see now why talk about "cheating" or "fairness" opens a whole can of worms when trying to maintain NPOV? Also, dicussion of your idea of humanity's "proper" role in nature is hopelessly POV. Animals (including humans) kill other animals. We're not here to pick sides, we're here to be factual and neutral. Friday 15:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

they take own the weak among the prey, therafore trhey contribute to the natural balance of keeping the prey species strong. humans are apart from the cycle. our place is to protect nature, not to interfere with it. the use of technology such as helicopters to hunt down and exterminate entire communities of wolves at once OIS unfair. becasuse A - wolvvescant fly for one thing and B - humans hunt wolves ourt of fear, and prejudice, wolves hunt to eat. Gabrielsimon 15:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. I hope you can see that saying something is unfair is expressing a point of view. Also, your guesses as to the motivations of wolf hunters are speculation and POV also. I see that wolf is still protected, but even once it's not, I would advise you to be cautious. It's great that you're trying to work this out on the talk page though. However other editors may be less inclined to work with you if they believe your goal is POV pushing. Friday 15:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the motivation of wolf hunters i mention is not POV, it is based on rwsearch. as for how fair it is, also research, not opinion. Gabrielsimon 22:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. You are demonstrating a continuing lack of understanding of NPOV and verifiability. If there's research, why not cite a source as I suggested on the talk page? Friday 23:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP the edit warring! Have you learned nothing? The page was protected due to your unilateral editing behavior, which you are now continuing. Did you read the talk page at all? Once again I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Friday 23:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i take it YOU havnt read the talk page. i asked you to stop removing my work , its already as NPOV as its gonna get, wtihout deleting the intforamtion, and it is important. Gabrielsimon 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I offered a compromise, but you were unwilling to budge on a single word you wrote. Please take a moment to assess what you're trying to accomplish here, because it seems like you're working against everyone in this community. - grubber 00:38, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

the comprimise reduced what i put to one word. Gabrielsimon 01:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You're exaggerating; most of what you wrote was still there. I was working to help keep your edit in the article but I'll assume you'd like to work this out on your own. Good luck. - grubber 01:28, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Interesting, Gabriel; I doubt we'll agree. There is a difference between killing wolves for "a few thousand bucks" -- though I myself would have no moral qualms about killing wolves for that kind of money -- and killing wolves for the difference between earning a living and going broke. This is the choice that some farmers face. One or two lambs a night, over the course of a year, easily adds up to that. And the sleepless nights spent watching and waiting. And hoping that the new fence or the latest nonlethal control method will work. They might, until the wolves get hungry. The idea that wolves take only the weak is false. That is, unless you consider an ewe that's lambing to be weak. That's one of their favorite targets. From the farmer's point of view, the wolf is a pest, or at least can be, just one of many obstacles to trying to make a living. Your attitude changes a lot when you see the dead lambs. As for methods, I have never advocated the use of poisons for predator control because there is so much indiscriminant killing as a result, mainly affecting raptor populations. I understand that hunting from aircraft works well. No sport in it to be sure, but that's not the intent; it's business rather than pleasure. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

business of humans does not justify elimination of a species. nor does someones livlyhood justify cruelty. wolves simply try to survive. one can not fault them for that. effectivness of an activity that is wrong doesnt justify that activity. as i have said before, humans are not natures masters, humans are the protectors of the balance, and as such have no right to choose what species should live and what species should perish for thier own foolish fears and desies. as guardians of the balance, humans have a lot to learn before they can go back to doing thier job properly. Gabrielsimon 02:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas. -- Psalm 8:4,6-9 (NRSV). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

biblical lies wont convince me. humans have intellect so that they may aid the world, and look what they did. the ramblings of a false god wont convince. those who quote scripture have no opinion of thier own. Gabrielsimon 03:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. - Chief SeattleGabrielsimon 03:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

((stupidity and creulty, some how m,ixed togeather has been removedGabrielsimon 01:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC))). Kurt Weber 23:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for standing up for fairness! Cognition 05:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

i try. Gabrielsimon 05:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition's page

If you'd care to join the discussion, it's at User talk:Cognition#User page reverts. Friday 14:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your feelings about wolf hunting

Message for you at User_talk:Ed_Poor#wolf_hunting. Uncle Ed 11:49, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

On wolf hunting edits

Just so you know, I found this edit particularly un-neutral. I hope you can see why. Even if you don't, I would see it as a personal favor to me if you'd discuss it before reverting it. Friday 21:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

the label that all wolves are destructive is totally false, most are only tryingto survive, hence its a false label, a generealization if you will. Gabrielsimon 23:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You apparently see the word "destructive" as an insult. It was not meant to pass judgement, it was meant to suggest that they destroy things, such as livestock. Gabriel, I really wish you'd ask yourself what you're hoping to accomplish here. You've already demonstrated poor judgement in making edits. You've already been banned multiples times for your edits. Yet, you're continuing to insist on getting only your own way, without compromise. That's not how things work here. Frankly, I'm sick of trying to compromise with you, when you won't budge. I'm pretty sure other editors are having problems with your behavior also. Friday 00:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

SOME are destructive, yes, but not all are, your wording says that all are, and that is unacceptable. can you see why? Gabrielsimon 00:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's your chance. Try this. Do not talk to Friday anywhere but at talk:wolf hunting. If he posts here, simply ignore it.

And explain why you insist on scare quotes around "justification". Tell him what those scare quotes do to the word. And then suggest an alternative that he can understand and accept, but which does not compromise the integrity of the article. Uncle Ed 00:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

as you wish

Gabrielsimon 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: read the VFD

and see that tis ubn nessessary and it all stems from one users inaprpriate edits. (dreamguy went aganist consensus) Gabrielsimon 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the VfD. I also can see that the VfD is scheduled to be closed later today, and I would prefer to let the process work than have a group of editors warring over this issue while the VfD continues on. This is why I've protected the pages in question.

There is no situation in which an edit war is an appropriate response to anything on Wikipedia, including this one. Kelly Martin 05:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

the entire thing is DreamGuys fault, he changed thigns against consensus. Gabrielsimon 05:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually read the notice on the article Missing sun motif that said

DO NOT CHANGE THIS ARTICLE INTO A REDIRECT DURING THE VFD

?

You may not do this, it violates VFD policy. The article is now locked from editing. ~~~~ 07:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing Sun myth and its VFD

DO NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES DURING A VFD.

This is a serious violation of policy, and if you continue to do it, it will get you blocked from editing. ~~~~ 07:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the VFD is not on grounds that are appropriate, becaue the article was altered without consensus by user DreamGuy, thus making your complaint moot. Gabrielsimon 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• (A) Please learn what moot actually means.
• (B) Anything may be VFD'd for any reason. VFD is a request to the community to decide on the fate of an article. YOU MAY NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES FROM ARTICLES unless the VFD has been formally closed by a closing admin, doing so will get you blocked immediately. ~~~~ 10:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

moot means pointless, doenst it? Gabrielsimon 10:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is one meaning of it, but not in the context you are suggesting. But be that as it may, you do not unilaterally remove VfD notices. I cannot emphasise this enough. Even if you think a VfD notice is in bad faith, you raise it on the VfD discussion page, and do not remove it yourself. Let everyone decide if it is a bad faith nomination - you don't get to assume that kind of authority on your lonesome. --khaosworks 04:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

at the risk of sounding childish, if authority is not for one use, then DreamGuy shioyod getsome kind of punitive reaxction for assuming authority on missing s un myt's name change... he went agsint consensus.( for the record i wont do any such again) Gabrielsimon 04:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Different situation and context entirely. There is a procedure to be followed for VfDs. --khaosworks 04:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why did Jtkiefer initially remove the VfD and redirect the page? [1] Is he the VfD administrator? --AI 10:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No. That was due to the rather unusual nature of the article being VfD'd, as it was a cut and paste operation from Missing sun motif, so he believed that the fork article should not be the subject of a VfD. He was in error as well. --khaosworks 11:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the matter is now settled. I suggest that you abide by the results of the VfD, and refrain from removing VfD notices in the future except when closing a VfD discussion according to the process. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Book of Mormon

Welcome back, dear boy. You have reverted my edit to Book of Mormon, but with no explanation. This is not the way to work together with your co-editors. Wiki policy is to always explain your edits. This way we can work out differences as they arise, and you can spare yourself the ire of other editors evident in the talk page entries above. --Blainster 08:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

its simple really, the deketions seemed un nessessary. from having read the book once, it seemed that the removed items, aside from the link,m fit ., Gabrielsimon 09:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You say it is simple, but while ignoring policy by not summarizing your edits may seem simple to you, it only causes confusion for everyone else. Your reversion deleted three different edits. If you only meant to make one change, do you understand how carelessly reverting all of them might cause someone else to wonder why you did that? Did you merely forget to provide a summary? If so, please try to remember next time. And please take the time to use the diff function to look at the changes so that you can intelligently make the edits that you desire.

Also, your response indicates you "read the book once", so evidently you didn't bother to look up the verses cited. If you had, you would have seen that they do not make the statement that the entry claims they do. That is why they were removed. Thanks. --Blainster 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Edits to otherkin and vampire

Although many other editors, namely DreamGuy, have complained and nagged you during your tenure during Wikipedia, it is my own opinion that you deserve some type of award for your continued work on Wikipedia. So here it is:

I, Dbracey hereby give you the "Surreal Barnstar" for edits on Vampire and otherkin, please continue your great work on Wikipedia.

Thanks, happy editing, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Inanna

I have reverted your change from a redirect to a stub. When you have an expanded article available, please do feel free to replace the redirect with the new article. In the meantime, however, the redirect is more helpful than a stub. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Some friendly advice: the message that you just deleted was a 3RR warning about the wolf article. You should heed those warnings, even if you think they are unfair, given the problems that you have had in the past. Ignoring them will only give ammunition to the people you feel are harrassing you, and could result in you being blocked. If you feel that other editors are being unreasonable, then you should go through the dispute mediation process, rather than getting into revert wars. Ground Zero 20:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

in recent days he kept claoiming id vilated 3rr o my user talk page. so i thought it worth ignoring., good advicce tho. Gabrielsimon 20:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

By my count, you did violate 3RR on your talk page. However, I was very nice. Instead of reporting you (you'd have probably been banned for several days due to multiple offenses), I brought it up to you personally. However I see that you'd rather your behavior be evaluated through official channels. I'm sure the ever-increasing crowd of editors you've annoyed with your behavior will be glad to know that. Friday 20:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday, your way of intervening is just stirring things up. If you are an admin, please drop this matter. If you are not, then just leave it to the admins, because you're not helping. I'd like you to (1) review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and (2) stay away from Gabriel and wolves for a couple of days. If I tell the arbcom I can't handle this, then they will handle this - and they think in terms of 3-month paroles. I'm much easier to deal with.

Everybody, please think about what is best for Wikipedia. Uncle Ed 00:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

go ahead, report me. Gabrielsimon 20:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, you better ignore these guys, cool off, and stop ALL reversions. Otherwise, while I go on vacation next week I predict you will be on suspension the entire time. If you care about wolves, you MUST find a way of channeling that passion into neutral writing.

Your homework assignment is to read all of the Wikipedia:NPOV article. I can't make you do this, of course - but if you will learn what this policy is about, then you'll be able to edit all the articles you want. Same as me. Uncle Ed 00:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

You-Know-Me

Signing "You-Know-Who" might be a copyvio, but possibly even using the name at all is too. I don't intend to change my signature anytime soon though. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

i just thought it wold be fun... call it a tribute i suppose. Gabrielsimon 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Foolishness

Gabriel, if you keep feeling around, the other admins are going to block your account. I suggest you stick to finding an unbiased way to describe the controversy over wolf hunting. Uncle Ed 00:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

its not particularly easy to describe things coldly if you careabout them.

on another note, any way i could ask yopu mioght get people offf my back if they start buzzing about with some wierdnesS? i never ment any harm ifi i did anything.

Gabrielsimon 00:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's not easy, but sometimes it's the only way. And the way to get people off your back is: (1) Never answer a nasty or wierd comment, and (2) Talk to the people who make good edits. That's what I've always done, and they went and made me an Admin and co-chair of the Mediation Committee. Uncle Ed 00:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments

I'm ready to place a request for comments about your behavior. Policy and common courtesy demand that I ask of you, at least once, like many other editors have done already, that you cease that kind of behavior (edit/revert wars, refusing to acknowledge policies, accusing others of bad faith, etc.). I have gathered plenty of evidence of those disruptions. Is there something you want to say? --Pablo D. Flores 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

why not just talk to me about it? whatever it may be. i also do not remember ever doing anything that might give you a personal reason to persecute me. Gabrielsimon 02:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not persecuting you. In fact, I'm trying not to. I'm an editor of Wikipedia among thousands, and like most other editors I only want WP to be a good encyclopedia.

Talking to you is precisely what I'm doing. Do you understand why a lot of users have reverted your edits? Have you read the relevant policies that others have repeatedly mentioned to you? Do you understand that the rest of the editors are not trying to censor your ideas or just being stubborn? More important than that, will you act according to that, or will you continue ignoring the warnings? Reply as you please; the one thing I'm concerned about is that you don't go around messing with good articles and taking advantage of everybody's patience. --Pablo D. Flores 02:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

i read a few policeys today, at the request of ed. other then that i hadnt read any , sorry to say. it happens that some of the times i got blocked for 3rr were misunderstandings, as fara s i could tell, and others were of course me,, bewiong stubborn. i have no maliscious intent here, i thought i was attempoting to improove articles, or trying to add to them in constructive ways. Gabrielsimon 02:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, please walk lightly. There are actions you can take when you run into opposition, keep reading policies and you'll see. Aloha --AI 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Policies are not weapons to use against "opposition". If you think Wikipedia is a debate forum, where people fight for opposing ideas, you are deeply mistaken. Advising Gabrielsimon to look for policies that can be exploited for his benefit will not help him.

Pablo, I disagree with the way you are approaching Gabriel. I didn't say weapons. Opposition can include personal attacks. Policies dictate how a user can respond Action should be taken against such "opposition." Either help him out by suggestion policy or file an RfC. There is no point in discussion with Gabriel like this. --AI 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon, my request for comments is only that: asking other users to see what you've been doing and comment on that. I haven't placed it yet, and I won't if you change your way of contributing to Wikipedia (not only respecting rules and policies but also having the common sense to keep your personal feelings aside when editing an article). --Pablo D. Flores 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

im bad atnoticing details. do you have any specific suggestions that might improove what i do? Gabrielsimon 13:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel don't worry about RfC. If an RfC is filed on you, it will only result in you becoming a better contributor provided you consider the COMMENTS resulting from RfC. --AI 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The last comment is correct. However, RfC is intended in part for dispute resolution, and the RfC policy requires 1) that you try talking to the disputed user first in order to solve the dispute; and 2) that you notify the user before posting the RfC. That's precisely what I did. In fact, you cannot post a RfC without discussing it first with the disputed user.

Besides that, RfC would expose Gabrielsimon to comments from several users who have had problems with him before, and those comments would then be archived and available to everyone. I think it would be best to solve this here, without resorting to, basically, posting a big sign with an arrow pointing at Gabrielsimon and reading "problematic user".

Personal attacks are not opposition, they are merely personal attacks and should be reported as such. I haven't attacked Gabrielsimon, only criticized his way of editing. Opposition I understand as replying to opinions with contrary opinions, and it belongs in talk pages, not in articles.

FWIW, here is the personal attacks policy, in case Gabrielsimon didn't know where to find it.

My suggestion to GS: of course, read the policies with care. But more simply, don't get into edit wars, especially over small things like a capital letter or a pair of double quotes over one word. If someone corrects you, ask why (in the relevant talk page or user page). Ask for help. Don't let feelings get into statements of fact; back things up properly. For example, if you feel (as I do) that wolf hunting is no sport but bloody morbous entertainment for people with nothing better to do than simply butchering innocent animals for their sick pleasure, don't write all that, or suggest it, in the wolf hunting article — rather find public statements of reputable environmentalist organizations about wolf hunting, and integrate them nicely into the article, or link to them. Avoid using expressions like "Some people believe that..." to introduce opinions; be explicit about your sources.

--Pablo D. Flores 14:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

fair enough. Gabrielsimon 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I made the comment above because Pablo didn't specifically indicate your error with a suggestion of applicable policy. It looked to me like he was just lingering over you with a threat for RfC. I believe he should point out specific policies or guidelines if he knows about them. Here are some I am aware of which seem relevant to issues Pablo mentions:

• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines "It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow."
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith "When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project."
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style "Names of other planets and stars are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter"...
• Wikipedia:Cite sources ..."if you add information to an article which you gleaned from a specific external source, please at least write a quick note about where you got your information. If you can properly format your citation, that's great! If not, others can re-format it for you, as long as you provide all the information necessary to find the original source."...
• Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without containing any real information. Some peacock terms to watch for:"... "an important...", "one of the most important...", "one of the best..."
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms "It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternate opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." An example of a weasel: "Some have criticized the"..., "Legend has it..."
• Wikipedia:Revert ..."if you don't explain things people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started."

--AI 16:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

shaman

im thinkin of writing a shaman article, bexuase i do agree with the talk page on shamanism that shaman shouldnt reduirect to shamanism, the cited example is very good about how chrisianity isnt redirected from priest. any objections?

Gabrielsimon 15:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy's RfC

Gabriel, can you please remove your comment [2] from under Solipsis' comment. It is contrary to RfC protocol ("Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries")[3] and could be used against you as a violation of policy concerning personal attacks. You can reword it so it is more civil and place it in the talk page of the RfC. If you take the time to search down the specific instances of what you are talking about, you can get the difference from history pages and add it with a comment to the bottom of evidence. Aloha. --AI 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

you can remove it ifyou wish, ill go look and do so, but if you wish to i have no problem with it. Gabrielsimon 19:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

hows that? Gabrielsimon 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi you two... Both of you need to immediately stop trying to remove clear evidence of bad behavior. AI himself admits that this is being done solely to try to hide what you have done, and that is not allowed when the project page in question exists to determine who was violating policy and who was not. If you regret your comments, strike them thru with the strikethru tags, but if you think you can hide evidence of your behavior you are sadly mistaken. DreamGuy 20:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

Regarding your edits to September 11, 2001 attacks, please note the difference between NPOV and crank. Changing the language to suggest that a plane allegedly crashed into the Pentagon does nothing to maintain wikipedia neutrality, it replaces a statement of npov fact with conspiracy theories. The facts of the impact are not in doubt any more then the facts of the terrorist nature of the WTC attacks are, which segues to the secondary point: The 9/11 attacks on civilian infrastructure are a textbook definition of terrorism. There is nothing 'american pov' about it. Please review the dictionary definition of terrorism. -- Chairboy 21:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

its wiki policey not to use the word terrorist, isnt it? this is why we use the word MILLITANT. Gabrielsimon 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Something to think about

Hi, Gabriel.

I note that you have a pattern of controversial editing. Most of your edits are based on opinion rather than fact, and portray a lack of knowledge of the expectations of Wikipedia editors regarding substance, style, NPOV, and interaction with other editors. I see that Ed Poor has been trying to bring these matters to your attention as well. I will be rather more blunt than Ed has been.

Please leave the project unless you are willing to change, because your edits aren't helping us build a better encyclopedia.

If you want to change, and to improve the quality of your contributions, I make these suggestions:

• Reread the basics at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and take them to heart.
• Avoid inherently controversial articles, such as George W. Bush and September 11, 2001 attacks.
• Avoid articles where your contributions have been controversial in the past.
• Contribute fact-based, well referenced, well-organized prose.

I am happy to help if you have any specific questions.

Regards

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

i remove the word terrorist where i fimnd it, because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid Gabrielsimon 21:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that according to the section you referenced, an argument For the use is "The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all" and your stated intent seems to suggest that you are simply replacing every instance of it. As it is a "legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government" (also from that section), your edits in September 11, 2001 attacks are verging on vandalism. Also, please review the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which applies directly to you in the context of that article. -- Chairboy 21:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for a violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule with regard to your edits at September 11, 2001 attacks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

why am i blocked for TWO identical changes? the differences clearly will show that i did not revert the page in question four times, there are differences between versions, except the last two, so the blocking is unfair. please undo it, uninvited company. you juped the gun ( besides im only trying to enforce a policey as cited in words to avoid) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid Gabrielsimon 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You edited the page five times. Four of the edits were reverts to a prior version. The fact that they did not revert the same words is immaterial, as is the fact that one of the reverts was to another editors prior text. If you're going to walk the line and be a 3rr ruleslawyer, you have to get the details right. But, a better idea would be avoid reverts entirely, at least for a while, and consider my words above.

Further, it is not your place to enforce policy. As others have pointed out, policy does not support what you're doing.

I'm willing to unblock you provided that you promise to leave the September 11 article alone.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

okay, but i was only trying to help, you know? Gabrielsimon 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize that, but you have to learn how to help effectively first. Read my stuff above, and give me a few minutes to remove the block. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, you're a good kid and I like you, but you have to follow the rules, same as I do. Try doing a Wikipedia:text move instead, next time. Uncle Ed 01:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your 7th 3RR violation in the last 3 months

Gabriel, you have been blocked for 3RR violations on at least 7 occasions that I found:

• 2005 Apr 24 by Geni
• 2005 Jun 15 by Geni
• 2005 Jun 30 by Cburnett
• 2005 Jul 1 by Cyrius
• 2005 Jul 7 by Khaosworks
• 2005 Jul 12 by Bratsche
• 2005 Jul 20 by UninvitedCompany

Clearly your edits are rubbing people the wrong way. Your recent edits have been getting much better, but the revert wars you participate in are not productive. Please talk about your edits before you make them and if people revert your edits quickly, that is an indication that there is probably something that needs to be discussed first. I'd love to see you continue to make contributions, as it's clear you've made some good ones. But I do disagree with your methods and edit wars that circle around some of your controversial edits. - grubber 10:46, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

Around April he had already had at least three or four blocks for 3RR, so the total is going to be even higher. DreamGuy 19:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Notifying RfC

I've just placed a request for comment on your behavior. You've been told nicely about policies by admins and by several users, including me; I gave you suggestions and even offered to ditch my RfC (after I spent two hours gathering evidence for it). You've been blocked for 3RR violations several times and you seem undeterred. You're hereby notified. Please don't respond here or in my talk page; wait until comments arrive and then reply to them. --Pablo D. Flores 14:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration with regard to your recent edits, in light of your apparent unwillingness to take advice or follow the community's rules. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

what are you talking about?? Gabrielsimon 21:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I apologize. The link was incorreect. See WP:RFAr. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

i figured it out... btw, i do believe your over reacting. Gabrielsimon 21:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I should be packing for vacation, but ... while I'm gone if you do THIS, you will avoid suspension. Interested? Read on.

Any time, someone reverts one of your changes to an article, you need to (1) resist the temptation to "just put it back" and (2) try to get an explanation from them on the article's talk page. (3) If their explanation does not satisfy, you SEE RULE #1 AGAIN IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH!! (er, just kidding about the "die" part, was quoting Dumbledore facetiously for "effect" ;-) Uncle Ed 01:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)