User talk:Friday/archive1

Note to all: Please, nobody remove content here. Reverting vandalism is OK, but removing your own or other people's comments is not something I want done. Friday 00:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Friday/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ragib 28 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

Caterpillar Inc - controversies

If you feel up to writing the section on labour unrest then please add it. else give me some idea where to find out about it. GraemeLeggett 28 June 2005 09:07 (UTC)

sigh

i do not call removing material that cn be interpreted asslanderous as vandalizing. please, if not being nice, do not mention me. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

I guess I'll try responding to you here, since you've been deleting my comments on your talk page. It seems clear to me that you either do not understand what wikipedia is about, or you have some other purpose in mind for it. This is nothing personal about you. This is about your edits. Many of them are clearly POV, which isn't what wikipedia is for. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. I'm not picking on you. Other users are having to spend their time following you around, undoing your inappropriate edits. If this continues, you'll probably find yourself the target of an RFC. See Wikipedia:Request_for_comment#Comment_about_individual_users for more info. I'm not the only one who considers your actions inappropriate; why do you think you've been banned so many times? Friday 6 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

whats clear is your failure to understnad. please feel free to IM or email me for a more detaioled discussion, and no i mean not to be rude. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Don't worry Friday, I am with you. Gabrielsimon is very POV. And, by the way, nothing anyone here on Wikipedia writes can be "interpreted asslanderous" because slander has to be spoken. He's a nuisance, nothing more. --Lord Voldemort 6 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

you should research law more, slander is words in any published form. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

I must enjoy living dangerously, cuz I think I'll take my chances on the lawsuit. You, Gabrielsimon, are a problem user. Your edits are frequently terrible. If you want to give opinions on topics that you care about, try doing it in your user pages. Nobody will bother you there. Friday 6 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

i add pieces to articles that complete pictures, when i see someonthing as incomplete. as for people leaving my user pages alone, ypu dont... and if thats something to be indicitive of how others here are then that is a lie, kindly remove me from your user page's little list. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

I haven't edited your user page, I've edited your talk page. There is a difference. I was trying to explain to you how your actions are hurting wikipedia. However, this is pointless, I can see that I'm not helping and I'm becoming increasing unable to continue assuming good faith on your part. Friday 6 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

you should never make assumptions, and your condescending tone got annoying a while bacl, even if it is only interperted that way.

you should not judge me by my spelling. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia. However, I've so far found that by and large, users judge other users by their edits. Nothing more, nothing less. This is probably a Good Thing. If you start making better edits, you may find that you're respected as a user. You'll probably also find people being less likely to undo the changes you make. Friday 6 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

as ive said ot other people in the past, my spellings not entirely my faullt, i can explain if i was asked to, but i care not to for the moment, im getting ttired of having to explain my self a lot of late. as for my edits, its only on a few pages like stuff inviolingthe LDFS movement, that i got a bit snippy. kindly remove my name from your little list. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Caps and Word of Wisdom

Thanks for your note on the LDS project page. Please note that the LDS related topic is on Word of Wisdom, while the Pentacostal usage is listed under Word of wisdom. We should probably make the distinction clearer on both pages. Appreciate your interest. WBardwin 7 July 2005 02:25 (UTC)

Progressive Bloggers

You're welcome. You're doing great; don't sweat the partisan foolishness. And welcome to Wikipedia! CDC (talk) 9 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

Vanity

Vanity has nothing to do with my postings. And what makes you as a "Wikipedian" more fit to determine the importance of works than myself?

Criticism

Sorry for not knowing all of the shorthand that you "Wikipedians" know being that this is my first day and about 2nd hour spent on this site as a user and not just a searcher. --Cousin 22:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not claiming I'm more fit than you to judge the importance of articles. However you've created a couple of them which the community seems to see as non-notable vanity. You'll find that the community tends to judge editors on the basis of their edits. I'm glad to have you on board as a new editor, however you might want to edit existing articles rather than creating new ones for now. Also, you might find it helpful to read What Wikipedia is not. Don't feel bad about the learning curve, if you act in good faith, most folks here will be nice and helpful. Friday 22:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vfd

You might be interested to know I put a Vfd on Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state, another Cognition association but this one based on people's POV's rather than on factual info about people, SqueakBox 16:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your comments on my page

Considering that you know how bad of an editor User:Gabrielsimon is from the section called "Sigh" above, it is odd that you posted to my talk page to suggest that I not erase his comments. He has been harassing me, causes problems for many other editors, and something needs to be done to try to get him to knock it off. DreamGuy 18:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was my comments I was referring to. :) But yes, I see that others have been posting comments also. I can understand how some editors can be difficult to work with. However, I still don't think it helps your case to delete their comments. Particularly, deleting actual, trying-to-be-helpful comments and calling them "harassment" in your edit summary doesn't look good. Friday 18:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

the rfc

why agree that he doesntneed to be made to go awy? he insults more hten just me quiite regularly, and refuses to become even a little more polite. he wont even try to see how he offends. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

He's being obnoxious, sure. But the controversy is already way overblown, and there's probably counterproductive behavior going on on both sides. Sometimes it's easier (and more productive) to avoid other editors than to fight with them. I know, I've tried it both ways. Friday 02:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

if you look at the  evidance and  know that hes been actin his way for more then six months, that might  make you think a little.

Gabrielsimon 02:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Advocate wanted?

I think it was suggested that Tkorrovi ought to have an advocate, rather than Paul, because he'd benefit from having someone who could help him express himself clearly. The backgound, you are, right, is not malice-based, but rather "Babel-based". The difficulty arises because Paul is a very concise user of English, contributing on a subject - artificial consciousness - which needs careful definition before one even starts to cover any research done, or the possibilities in future that the idea represents. (It's a bit like trying to write the definitive article on unicorns.) Tkorrovi is not a native English speaker and has his own unmovable incorrect ideas about what is correct English, always arguing that what others construe has his terminological inexactitude is just his own perfectly valid - "democratic", if you like - ideas of how the English language is constructed, and believing that his particular modes of expression should not be corrected by others - someone who doesn't know one's language telling one that one has got it wrong. No progress can really be made when dealing with someone who takes that attitude, who won't admit to the possibility that his usage is crass and hence won't improve, who doesn't understand the meanings of common words, and argues like a sea-lawyer with anyone who attempts to correct his linguistic barbarities. You will see: in a moment he will probably make a posting here to justify himself. Take sides if you like. Supporting Tkorrovi is to support encyclopedic entropy, unless you can get him to agree to your being his English teacher. Taking a stance against him will lead to histrionics. Matt Stan 13:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why should I justify myself, when most what you say is obviously wrong? This time you want to announce to the whole world how bad my English is, and how pigheaded I am. About my English again, I learned it many years ago in Australia, I try my best but of course I make mistakes sometimes.Tkorrovi 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

When have you made a mistake? Matt Stan 07:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, you supposed to have a university education, at least as you claimed, then why are you still constatly involved in the most low level nagging?Tkorrovi 21:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Where have I made a low-level nag, as you put it? Matt Stan 07:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The request I was referring to: [1]. Friday 20:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to sort this, persuade Tkorrovi to support Paul's thesis in the link he put here, and drop his request for arbitration. Matt Stan 07:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

I appreciate your comments, but I'm afraid it's gone beyond that now. Either Wikipedia takes a stand against these people or it will be destroyed. Adam 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like User:Cognition has decided to be obstreperous about Johann Sebastian Bach. I suspect he'll return, but right now, I need to go to bed. If you don't mind, could you check in on it for me, since I notice that you expressed an opinion on the subject? --Calton | Talk 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I've investigated this whole LaRoche thing, and man, now I feel kind of bad for so vociferously defending the Progressive Bloggers. I think all the points I made were valid (especially the Can-US thing), though its obvious to me now the original entry should have pointed out explicitly what was notable (though the Canadian aversion to bragging, and the fact that Prog Blogs is an equitable org may have prevented this). Friday, thanks for all the points you made. It wasn't wasted breath. I have internalized them, and it will certainly make me a better Wikipedia editor. --Simon.Pole 08:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Also, thanks for keeping cool and improving your article. I was beginning to wonder if it was possible for two editors to disagree over content in a constructive way, but you've proven to me that it is. Also, please accept my apologies if it ever seemed like I was slighting Canada or grassroots movements in Canada, or anything like that. Friday 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you reveting my userpage?

I want the version that Everyking and Ruy are restoring up. What do you mean by the "owner's version?" Cognition 04:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please restore the pre-Ed Poor version. There is no reason to do this. Please see Everyking's comments on my talk page. Cognition 04:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I had assumed you wanted the version you put there. I personally prefer that one, and think it's more aligned with the spirit of Wikipedia:User pages. Friday 05:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

who are we to decide hat goes on othes user pages tho? Gabrielsimon 05:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I just did not want to restore the pre-Ed Poor one myself, since the last time I did that, Ed Poor absused his admin powers by reverting me and then blocking me for three days. I asked Ruy and Everyking to restore the pre-Ed Poor version, and I am asking you now to stop preventing them from doing this. Please revert your own reverts. Cognition 05:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition, I wonder if you're confused about the facts, or whether you're intentionally misrepresenting the situation. First, reverting is not really an "admin power", any editor can do it. Second, your being blocked for three days appears to be about your editing behavior and personal attacks, see [2]. Yes, it's true that your user page was also criticized in the above, but this was additional evidence regarding your rather extreme POV. Also looks to me like more than one admin was involved, so this is clearly not a simple case of one abusive admin. Making such inflammatory and easily-refuted accusations will surely not improve your popularity. Friday 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

done. what is your next wish, person who opened the bottle? Gabrielsimon 05:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you guys are done here, there's discussion in User talk:Cognition about why the page was against Wikipedia:User pages standards. Friday 05:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Chipmonk's VFD

I put all of their CD's on VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

wolves

Friday, apparently Gabriel is sensitive to verbal nuance. Even a term like "point blank" or the use of "scare quotes" conveys something to him. Uncle Ed 19:56, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to be accomodating to him. Somewhere in between the various points of view, there's a neutral article trying to get out. Friday 21:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

And explain why you object to 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 00:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll try it! Friday 01:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Original Research"

The purpose of the entry was not to promote "original research" but to document the origin and use of term "Ecologics" -- the historical relevance ties into issues involving the environmental movement in the USA. I am taking the criticims under advice but need a few weeks to rewrite this submission and provide adequate references, weblinks and the verification of sources. But, this is time consuming and if the nature of "wikipedia" critics is so fickle in decision making than it might not be worth the time invested. I TRULY EXPECTED A MORE SUPPORTIVE, COOPERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS at Wikipedia. (anon)

its hard to expect thinghs from those who are unprooven. can we assume good faith on friday's part? this has yet to be seen. Gabrielsimon 06:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section

From another user's talk page:

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Is there some way we can work together as editors rather than against each other as enemies? I don't see that us fighting helps make the encyclopedia any better. Friday 22:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

love to make new friends. Gabrielsimon 22:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but that's not what I was going for. I was thinking more along the lines of editors who are able to co-exist in a constructive way. I'd love it if you'd agree to not edit certain articles, but I realize this is asking a lot. What else can we try? I have a request, for starters. I'd enjoy it greatly if you'd not (IMO, falsely) report me as a vandal and a 3RR violator. In return, I'll bring any perceived problems on your end to your attention personally, rather than reporting them through official channels. What do you say? Friday 22:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

i do not report falsely. your requests make you seem two faced. Gabrielsimon 22:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

About Gabrielsimon

I'm about to request comments about the dispute in Vampire and other pages. Gabrielsimon's behavior is simply not acceptable. Whether on purpose or not, he's acting like an "editor's bait", adding questionable content and then waiting for others to revert it so that he can denounce them as abusive. Would you back this request up? Do you have any suggestions on wording it? --Pablo D. Flores 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

boy, you dont know anything about why i do what i do. Gabrielsimon 23:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I will back you up. I'm still a newbie myself so I haven't done anything as drastic as RFC. However I agree with you that his editing behavior is not acceptable, so I will help however I can. Friday 00:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Err, I'd back you up too... I haven't touched Vampire in a while, but that was one (and Vampire lifestyle) where I got into conflict with him in the past... he had highly bizarre POV edits and then abuse when I undid his changes. Of course his "demounce them as abusive" led to him just recently RfCing me, so I'm not sure if his long history of accusing me of bad edits and abuse would taint your efforts. He's been highly troublesome since day one, blocked for 3RR violations I think 7 times (and there were a few other times when he could have been blocked for it but wasn't out of misplaced kindness), and so abusive that I took off a number of articles from my watchlist that I had been a longtime contributor to instead of getting into yet more conflict with him. DreamGuy 00:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to both. The request for comments is, for the moment, on hold. I notified Gabrielsimon about it and it seems he gets the idea... Of course, one more knee-jerk-type revert of those, or one more unfounded accusation of abuse or censorship, and I will place the request. Unfortunately, there is at least one user giving the wrong advice to him, and other who have encouraged him on other occasions. I'm assuming good faith and no sock puppetry involved. We'll see. --Pablo D. Flores 13:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I really hope he straightens out. Unfortunately, I've seen him do this before. (By "this", I mean acting like he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong the minute he thinks he might get in real trouble.) I very nearly lost the ability to have good faith in him when I saw him come off a 3RR ban and immediately begin edit warring again. So, all I can do for now is stay away from the pages we've been fighting over. Thanks for helping out, and if I have a problem, instead of leaving him a note about it as I'd done in the past, I'll ignore him, and drop you a note instead. I'm afraid I'm probably too irritated to deal with him nicely. Friday 16:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Request made

I just placed the request for comments. Please read it and sign it. --Pablo D. Flores 13:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for signing it so quickly. This is the first time I post a RfC myself, so I wasn't that sure, but I simply couldn't find a way to deal with this guy, and couldn't let him do as he pleases without saying anything either. Maybe this will get some sense into his head. I've placed the RfC notice on several article talk pages (e. g. Talk:Wolf); if you know other places where he's been doing his thing, or users that know of him, please mention the request there too. --Pablo D. Flores 14:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ecologics

I nominated Ecologics for deletion. Since the nomination, the article author has contacted me and asked for assistance with the article. I was initially dubious that the article was legitimate, however I have been convinced that it is being edited in good faith, albeit by a new and inexperienced editor. I have retracted my delete vote, and I would appreciate it if you would consider visiting the article and the deletion discussion, and reconsidering your deletion vote. Best regards, EvilPhoenix talk 03:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Biting...

Is there ANY way I can mark an article that I know is inappropriate? I'm interested in going through new pages as they come up and making a note that they are wrong in some way (letting someone else sort out the details). Does this eventually get done anyway and I shouldn't worry with it? Thanks. Category 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for hellping with what i added to the vampire article. i have no idea why i was getting a red link that last time... Gabrielsimon 19:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

terroist

its a word to avoid, as cited here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid  so i remove it where i finmd it.  seems  ok to me anyway.

Gabrielsimon 21:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Contentless articles

I'm presently working on it.

patience

Hi Friday, just wanted to say "good job" for your patience in the current kerfuffle over Witchcraft etc. Hopefully the Gabrielsimon RFC will help clear up some of the ongoing misunderstandings. Thanks for your contributions! FreplySpang (talk) 20:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. A couple weeks ago, I was astounded at the apparent superhuman patience I saw from certain other editors, but now I see why it's helpful. Friday 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

you know, its not my intention to be an agravating person. Gabrielsimon 09:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

THANX FOR LETTING ME IN I WOULDEALLY LKE TO CONTRIBUTE SOME USEFUL INFO BUT DO NOT HAVE CLUE ON THE STRANGE ORMAT THAT YOU USE. MAYBE YOU CAN OFFER SOME ADVICE. AGAIN I AM, ESTHER

Otherkin

Thanks for your note - I just had to speak up, since I hadn't heard the word in three years or so. I'll be following the article's progress.  :) KathL 06:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon

Okay, I apologize if I was unclear about my point on the number of edits he made. I still think that a compromise should break through - and I don't think my point is very far fetched (or at least not disagreeing with the other editors). : ) Dbraceyrules 19:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

To further clarify my point I will post what I had left on the anon user's page:Sorry that you disagreed on my argument, however what I am saying is: Gabrielsimon has good intentions but gets angry sometimes, and therefore may add dubious/controversial stuff to Wikipedia. I don't know if you can be upset, as according to your talk page several people have detected vandalism from this IP address. In the end I just want a compromise. I don't think Gabrielsimon is right by adding his opinions in articles, but I do believe that Gabrielsimon has outstanding potential as an excellent editor on this sight. He only deserves a second chance. I don't know if you'll agree with that but I think a second chance and compromise: that is, that detractors stop bashing Gabriel, and that he avoids adding dubious content in the encyclopedia - is the best, and most kind method of resolving the dispute. Dbraceyrules 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is the man deserves another chance, yeah I hear the argument already: that he has had multiple chances. Well, okay, hopefully the RfC will get him to respond. If not, he can just suffer the consequences. Come on, even some of the complainants on the other page said that the man had potential as an editor. Why not see him for what he is worth and allow him to put good info on the encyclopedia? Why not? Dbraceyrules 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I have not seen any indication that anyone wants to prevent him from making good edits. The topic at hand is how to prevent him from making bad edits. Currently the suggestion (which I think is helpful) is the one revert rule, so that even if he still makes bad edits, they'll be less frequent and less harmful. Friday 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that others want to directly prevent him from having good edits either. However, I think that so many editors are caught up in NPOV and POV rants of his, that no one is seeing the silver lining in the cloud. I don't think my argument is off from what the other editors had stated. A compromise is all I am suggesting. I am hoping that Gabrielsimon will be more careful in the future, and other people can tone it down a bit. He'll come to his senses, and if not, he'll have to suffer the consequences. And I still don't think that number of edits means they were all beneficial. Dbraceyrules 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Creation science

Can you tell me what specific objections you have to the current form of the article's lead section? You can reply on my talk page. -- BRIAN0918  23:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "emotionally involved"? I didn't protect the page, so I can't be the one to unprotect it. Besides, we haven't gotten anywhere in discussion yet, so we shouldn't unprotect it. That's the point of protection. You should check out the edit history of the page. If it's unprotected now so that new people like yourself can "take a crack at it", we're just going to have the same thing happening. Why the rush for unprotecting? It's only been one day. -- BRIAN0918  12:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no rush. But you seem to believe the discussion isn't going anywhere, and not everyone else agrees. I can understand your frustration dealing with trolls and edit wars, but there are other editors involved who are fresher to the topic and less frustrated. To be perfectly honest, it seems to me like you're actively discouraging some of the discussion, or perhaps trying to make sure it all goes according to your plan. I was under the impression that articles here don't belong to any one editor personally. Friday 14:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

sigh

do you use my edit histroy page abnd look around for things to revert? Gabrielsimon 22:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not lately. I've got a few hundred things on my watchlist that keep me pretty busy, plus new pages/vfd patrol. If you're talking about Mormon, I've been interested in LDS-related topics since before I even created my account. I happen to agree with Val42 that the additions you put back in were too POV. Also, since they belong in other articles instead, it's better to remove them than to try to fix them where they stand. If any editor wants that copy wants to go in the appropriate article, they could try adding it there. But they'd have to make it more NPOV for it to be accepted, I suspect. Friday 22:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

wasnt trying to be rude. i would just rather not be folowed around, and was worried that that might be starting up again. Gabrielsimon 22:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

regarding NPOV/Otherkin

Regarding the post on my talk page, the section you couldn't find in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view under Pseudoscience is in # 10.5 Giving "equal validity", or a paraphrase of it anyway. The Pseudoscience aspects I think are more important, though. I phrased it poorly. DreamGuy 22:11, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

please

if you wish to ask or complain about anything i do, talk to me o my talk page, its really annoying to air all the "dirty laundry" on the RFC wiuth some people id like to thonk of as idiots and others hanging on everyword.... please? Gabrielsimon 20:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Idiots" eh? You still haven't learned about Wikipedia:Civility, Gabriel. YThe RfC is the specific place for those discussions... I tried to discuss the issue with you on my talk page but you gave the "sleeping" excuse and apparently continued to violate your agreed upon 1RR. When we try to give you the benefit of the doubt you abuse it. DreamGuy 20:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If you guys must fight, please don't do it on my talk page. Friday 20:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it a "fight" to point out what he is doing is wrong? He is deleting my comments off his talk page... I'd appreciate it that when you reply there that you check the history and restore them... there's strong evidence that his claims of "sleeping" and thus confusing the 1RR time limits is a direct lie and instead of responding to that he's deleting it, much like he tried to delete it off the RfC. DreamGuy 23:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

you cna tell

that im geting tired of people following me ar ound and bothering me, im trying to get things right... things take time.

Gabrielsimon 23:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

residential school

residential school is mostly my work at the point of merge -in from the residential schools in canada article i kept to the facts, and spoke no overly inflammatory language, in spite of what those monsters did to my own ancestors, and even as late as 1996, were still allowed to do by the state. Gabrielsimon 03:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

diskflyer deletion

Please don't delete the diskflyer page. I am trying to make a list of all the species on darwin IV, so please leave the page up. I'm just trying to spread knowledge!

Emmet Miller

I was on new page patrol and I noticed that you had put a CSD tag on this article, I just wanted to let you know that it actually had a history and had been blanked so I reverted the blanking (and with it, your CSD tag). Rx StrangeLove 03:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

rfc things again=

on my rfc, if you examiner the last section on the talk page, i would bw appreciative. Gabrielsimon 04:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw it. I'm not sure that's how these things work. Honestly, I think you've generally done more harm than good by your participation in your RFC. Friday 04:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

well, i was hoping that people would ,a fter three weeks leave me alone, theres already an RFA in place, so what else do people want from me?? Gabrielsimon 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you really not know? I'm able to see that you're trying to contribute helpfully, but it's taken quite an effort on my part. You've continued to remove comments and otherwise disrupt your RFC. You've violated 3RR over and over, and disregarded your agreement to abide by the 1RR. How do you think this looks to other editors? Friday 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

p[artially the 3rr, like the most reent one that i got blocked for, was me forgetting to [pay attention. the rest is that asshole dreamguy baoiting. i really am tryingto make things better, cause i likethis place. Gabrielsimon 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of admitting you've made mistakes and changing your behavior, you just make excuses. Again, how do you think this looks to other editors? You and Dreamguy are very frequently fighting. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, but it gets in the way of making an encyclopedia. Why not just ignore him? Friday 04:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

its kind of hard to ignore someone who frequqntly insults and reverts every change you make. Gabrielsimon 04:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ketrovin

He may be Gabrielsimon. He can type much better, but still makes some pretty bad errors. And then he does several edits on otherkin I can't tell if he is or not, though. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I put something on the RFC talk page about this. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gabrielsimon#Sockpuppet?. Friday 18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see several similarities, but then there are differences too. I find Ketrovin dropping on my page to say "hi" very suspicious, but that really doesn't seem like something GS would do. Perhaps he changed his behavior a bit so people wouldn't suspect him. It's hard to say. Let's look at both their contributions. If they overlap, we know that Gabrielsimon isn't involved. If, however, they edit at different times to related pages, we have a case. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think discussion and evidence (for or against) should probably be centralized on the talk page. I believe there are technical means to determining sockpuppetry too, so hopefully there'll be a way to get a good clear answer. Friday 18:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We have something. Gabrielsimon hasn't edited anything since 9:26 UTC, and Ketrovin has edited since then. I hate to play Devil's advocate, but I think GS may be sockpuppeting.D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

So becasue I am interested in an unusual cultiural phenomenon, that being the Otherkin, i get accused of being someoen who i am not? I am sorry if my saying hello was not good form, D. J. Bracey but i followed links from pages i found to see who was discussing things , and i thought i might like to make some friendly terms aquaintances while im here, to aid in the communal experiance, so i said hello. its also how i found Vashi, to ask a question to. Tell me, have I offended either of you in some way? Ketrovin 18:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I've made accusations at all. I asked you a question. You're (I guess) maintaining that you're not the same user. That's all. Friday 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For information, a couple of the bureucrats have access to tools that can determine connections between sockpuppet accounts and other users. Apart from exceptional cases they prefer not to use them because the opportunity to edit anonymously is one of the central elements of Wikipedia. However, they have been used in some previous arbitration cases. -- Solipsist 19:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

in case it IS a game of some kind

Are you User:Thursday? Ketrovin 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Moral right

He vandalized a few pages earlier, adding "I am the moral right." to a few user pages (including your user page).

All of the people affected were involved in Talk:Caterpillar Inc., which he deleted all comments after June 30th. [3]

Just thought you would like to know. Toffile 15:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Toffile 20:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Friday. Someone else changed my pass word

Yesterday I was informed my password had been changed. It was not my doing. I tried answering the E-mail but no dice, could not get thru. I do not know who changed my password, but I have a suspicion it was User Eclipsed. {Just look over our exchanges to search for clues). Whatever. Anyhow Wikipedia has introduced me to some very interesting people and I had fun. But I just don't fit in here. I don't seem to fit in anywhere. Martin understood. I'm just too damned curious. I have a gift for making others uncomfortable. This time I finally got it into my head to skate out of here. Tell my friends Wetman and Vaughn I enjoyed there exchanges and help. I would highly appreciate the saving of my user page, if possible. It took a lot of work. As long as there are book burners Wikipedia will always be handicapped. It is always easier to burn a book than to write one. The most dangerous thing in the world is a new idea, the gathering of data that has been overlooked or forgotten. I have a passion for the obscure. I'm sorry, but I just can't keep from wondering about things. Adios. Elvis has left the building for good this time. Logging out forever. User:Kazuba 9 Aug 2005

This user (Kazuba aka 198.208.159.14 aka 68.41.141.167) has a history of using personal attacks to support their claims. The user has also claimed they will leave wikipedia before[4], where they wrote "I'm just not cut out for Wikipedia. I have a deep distrust of men because of their love of power and their brutality." Eclipsed 16:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice to be appreciated

Thanks for your comments. Feel free to e-mail me. Taxwoman 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On Yehia Mowiena

You beat me to the punch, I was adding the vfd when you put in the speedy there. Good work, man. I'll be sure to add some cowbell on the way out ;-) Karmafist 14:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Gestir

I implemented the decision of VfU, spending my time creating content that other people requested. I shan't bother again. Pcb21| Pete 10:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi, please only use speedy delete tags on articles which meet the criteria. Daily Howler does not. Kappa 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have put DreamGuy up for arbitratioon for incivillity. add evidance at your convieniance, or just repair my formatting if it suits youGavin the Chosen 02:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)