Please see Talk:Witchcraft#References_for_post-Columbian_origin_of_witch-accusations. Friday 00:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
post colombian is the only way, becasue of the simple fact that the word and its comnnotations are european in origion.
Gabrielsimon
00:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
my beef is really with te with trials bit, most of the time, there were no execcutiopns, no matter how bad the offending magic user was ( according to hat evidance i can find in oral hustories) the worst thing thath appened was a banishment. tho those were usually temporairy... might it be good to procide words that tend to tranlaste into "Witch"? Gabrielsimon 08:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary. As a result, although I removed the King James reference, I changed the topic sentence to show the list is for "Smith's works" - not just LDS scriptures. I hope that reduces the confusion for everyone. Peace. WBardwin 05:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please understand, it's not that I'm "following you around". We have several of the same articles on our watchlists, I suspect. But, you need to understand: the RFC on you means that other editors may be scrutinizing your edits. I'm not trying to harass you, so I won't post here anymore. However I won't simply give up on editing articles either. Friday 05:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
you really need to stop pestering me.
Gabrielsimon
06:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 24 hours. -- khaosworks 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
i do hope i was not out of line.
Gabrielsimon
09:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they would be up for VfD quick as a heartbeat if you did, for non-notability. -- khaosworks 12:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
what about after i started publishing the series? Gabrielsimon 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
well it would just be so that people would get it right.... i dislike it when people get things wrong about what i do... search for " simply terran" for a short story of mine... you might like it.. ( its only about apage and a half) Gabrielsimon 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Several users provide a link to their website or blog on their user page, or post an image of their artwork. Just don't turn it into a gallery or an obvious self-promotion page. Your user page poetry, for example, is quite acceptable. NoSeptember 20:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Gabriel,
I hesitate to get involved, and obviously I know that yourself and User:DreamGuy don't necessarily get along, but do you really value the edits by User:69.194.72.40 to the Lilith article? Most of their edits yesterday, such as this, were pretty poor and self-aggrandizing. I can't see any reason to think that the web site they reference from the Lilith is in any way credible - some of the quotes there are quite obviously wrong. -- Solipsist 06:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
ceretainly. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
lil help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon Gabrielsimon 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
as i have said before, i do not get angry, i feel its beneath me to do so. so no worries. Gabrielsimon 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Yo. What's with the deletion of entire sections of the article? Vashti 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
medical perspectives is origional research, according to slimvirgin. also i archived the talk. Gabrielsimon 10:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I can talk to you here if you like. As you might have seen previously on your talk page, I'd stopped leaving you messages here because you've deleted many of them, and said I was annoying and my messages were useless. From your recent edits on Mysticism, I see that you're not following 1RR. Other editors have complained of similiar failures to observe it.
This is an optional rule; I don't believe anyone's forcing you to follow it. If you've decided not to, I think you should at least say so. The last we'd heard from you on the subject was that you were agreeing to it. Friday 20:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i do wait like 12 hours betwen edits ( vbecause i do them before and after i sleep) however, mystisim is sopmewhen you have to look at everything thats going on, i keep chanigng things back to how on thetalk page things were decided to be, can you not see that the word, by definition divinity is more then enough for all divine beings? (and i was having and am having horrible times, checkl the section of my user page titled lately... (( also, pleae readt he poetry of mine section and tell me what you think)))
Gabrielsimon
21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
yopu did miss a lot. most of my changea to that article, ifyou look ath te history are discutive or repariative in nature.
Gabrielsimon
21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
my perception of time is a little wonky since ive been soick, from my perspective i thought a day had gone by from whjen i made the change till when you did... cause i went to sleep betweeen... btw, whatyou think of the poetry? Gabrielsimon 22:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i thought the 1rr was a varient of trhe 3rr rule...
Gabrielsimon
23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
it might also be goood to note that i aint 70.28.160.144 Gabrielsimon 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
id like to think i am above such reprehensible behaviour... it doesnt even sound like it can be taken seriously... sock puppets, who can talk to one of those without giggling? Gabrielsimon 23:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i am learning how to get my points accross without stepping on toies. Gabrielsimon 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i am at my wits end with this annoying perrson, so DreamGuy, GO the (bleeeeeep) aaway. LEAVE me ALLONE, find some other hobby... in other w ords STOP BOTHERING ME. i can edit MY talk page however i see fit, its not RUDE of me to edit out what i dont want to hear, and if your claiming that it is wrong of e to edit things off of my talk page from toher editors then your a HYPOCRITE, now, to RE iterate, GO AWAY, STOP bothering me, LEAVE me ALONE and above all else, try to have an otherwise fabulous day. secondly i only remopve your lies.
Gabrielsimon
00:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, are you incapable of understanding that you *must not* interfere with the evidence presented in the RFC? You're only hurting yourself by doing this, and every time you violate the RFC procedure you make it more and more likely that all this will end up with you being banned. Is that what you want? Vashti 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC) DreamGuy complains every time someithing doesnt go his way, his words on that page will damn me with no just cause. i cant just let that happen. Gabrielsimon 01:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I hate to play the Devil's advocate, but your RfC, as DreamGuy's, cannot be deleted. Dbraceyrules 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then fix the template to say close becasue orsomething, please/. i cantstnad the constant badgering, im tring, things take time... Gabrielsimon 01:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
this is constant harrassment, i wish it to stop, its DRIVING ME nuts, i have done everything i can to get then to fuck off, but no ones having any part of it, I JUST WANT THEM TO FUCK OFF AND LET ME OUT OF THE FUCKING PETRIE DISH, I WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i can put up with constructive critisism, easily enough, i cna adapt to what people want, easilyenough, but this is beyond annoying, i cant tolerate constant harassment.
Gabrielsimon
02:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
do you know what its like to have many people judge you on criteria thats not fit for judging osnoene on? doyou know what its like to have ones best efforts thrown back in to ones face? i admit im sensitive, its a part of what and who i am , but after what, amonth now? of people putting me under a freaking microscope, im getting REALLLLLLLLY sick of it
i want to be left in peace. no one gets that i am trying to change things to thier requests, all they o woth thier constant harassment is to badger me and annoy me farther. this is not usefull.
Gabrielsimon 02:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
--Gabe, I'm sorry to have to say this...and you can just delete this comment off your talk page if you want to...but there's a reason you're in "the petrie dish," and that's because of edit after edit you've made that people have a problem with. If you simply wish to be left alone, you can leave the Wikipedia project. But if you wish to edit and contribute to Wikipedia pages, you will be held to certain standards, and you will be subject to scrutiny--just like me or anyone else. And I'm not sure that you've acknowledged that your behavior is at fault, and you accept that, and you intend to change it. Your pattern of behavior seems to be to get into an edit war on some topic, then back off when the heat gets too high, only to go start another edit war on some other topic, and so on, and so on, and so on. You remove paragraphs from the article on the September 11 attacks, then move on to edit the language in the Trail of Tears, then move on to wolf hunting, etc., etc., etc. This is why there is an RFC. I'm still not at all convinced that you actually understand that there is a _problem with the way you are using Wikipedia_, and not merely a bunch of people who have decided that they don't like you. As for the latter, I have seen the enthusiasm you bring to Wikipedia, and nothing would make me happier than for you to bring your energy, passion and dedication to Wikipedia in ways that the community can value...constructive ways. But you seem to have a _lot_ of trouble working within what the wiki communitiy considers NPOV, avoiding original research, etc. Let me give a few examples: in editing the 9/11 attacks article, you simply erased the paragraph dealing with the recovered videotape that seems to show bin Laden admitting responsibility for the attack. Now, you said that it was an obvious forgery, but that is _your_ POV--it certainly does not represent a consensus view of that piece of evidence. The most you should have done is add a sentence or two CITING REFERENCES that call the authenticity of the tape into question. As another example, you repeatedly insisted on identifying the Trail of Tears as a "death march" instead of a "forced relocation." This is problematic because "death march" is very opinionated, loaded language, and is not the most appropriate way of dispassionately describing what the purpose of the event was, or how it happened. You will not find the statement "The Trail of Tears was a death march," in the first paragraph of many encyclopedias, I will wager. Again, you might have made your point in a more appropriate fashion by including language on how many people died en route, the manifiest lack of concern on the part of the US Army, etc., and then said "in light of these statistics, the Trail of Tears might well be considered a 'Death March,' comparable to the infamous 'Bataan Death March,' in which XX out of XX people perished en route." That is the kind of work that distinguishes an encyclopedia article from a political manifesto, and, Gabriel, I need to be perfectly frank here--I rarely see you put forth that kind of effort in your edits. THAT is why there is so much attention on you right now.
I know you may not appreciate these kinds of comments on your personal talk page. Like I said, please feel free to delete this--I won't take offense. But I think you would profit a great deal, and so would Wikipedia, if you would take a minute to stop looking at this RFC as a pure persecution, and ask _why_ you have attracted so much negative attention.
And, look, it kind of pains me to say this: but it is really insulting when you make edits to the encyclopedia, as opposed to a talk page, and you don't seem to check your grammar or spelling at all. I know that you have some problems with your vision, but that is really no excuse. Don't you have a word processor program with spell check? (If not, you can download one from Sun for free.) Then type your edits into that, and paste them into the encyclopedia afterwords. I mean, we all make typos and grammar errors, but it looks like you just don't care about the basics, time and time again. I'm talking about things like capitalizing sentences. It's really rude to make absolutely sloppy edits that other people have to clean up for you. If it's hard for you to get spelling, typography, etc., correct, that that is just an indication that you should put more time and thought into your edits, and a level of effort that shows respect for the Wikipedia project and everyone that is contributing to it.
I will be out of town on business next week and away from the Internet in all likelihood, so I may not be present to see how the RFC process plays out. But, in all honesty, I have tried to offer the above comments in a constructive spirit, and I hope you take them that way. I think you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia...but, honestly, you have a lot of issues to overcome as well. I hope you will consider what I and other people have had to say. -- Craigkbryant 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
the infomration removed from the september 11 article cncerned when they said that it was a definiate fact that that bil laden gu said he was responsible for the attack, which , if you research it, was later found to be quite likly a fake , as for wolf hunting, fault me for trying to show people what happens, if you wish... as for my typing style, i have damamged arms and hands, from when i was hit by a car , its actually quite painfull to type, and i am trying to work around that, to try to contribute anyway... check, for example the residential school article and the mysticism article's edit histories to see where i have handled myself better. and you seem to ber trying to help, so i respond, attempting to be just as respectfull . people like DreamGuy on the other hand seem to only wish to complain and harass, so i delete his words for thier sheer annoyancec. Gabrielsimon 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i stuck to the facts, and didnt instert overly inflammatory language, even though my grandfather went through that experuance, its to proove that i can do things right. Gabrielsimon 03:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
most of the article section in he candaina ersidential school section there was my work that was merged from a different article. Gabrielsimon 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
My best advice to you: Ignore the harassment. Don't even bother deleting it. Just ignore it.
Once you ignore the harassment, hopefully you'll see that in addition to the harassers, there are also some good editors trying to get you to change how you approach making edits. Friday 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
please leave me alone, ive asked you before , and you wont. Gabrielsimon 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you feel better now? I hope you are alright. Dbraceyrules 04:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i try really hard not to get mad, but sometimes i fail... sorry...
Gabrielsimon
04:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The fight was an uphill battle, and it was agreed upon that he not add POV or anger other users in the future. I had also stated that I'd be more than happy to revert my vote if I saw any evidence that he went against the agreement. I hope this doesn't anger you, but it's about time some things settle down. Compromise was the only way here, but if I see anything rude by DreamGuy, I'm will take my signature off and whatever he may do as evidence Dbraceyrules 04:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
he "promnised" not to put in his own POV, so hes been doing so more sneakily, look at the OTherkin article andsee how he trtied to put quotes arounbd every mention of a phenotyple... which he meant as " by the waym,, these people are wrong" sort of quotes.... Gabrielsimon 04:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i am speaking ofearlioer versiojns. quetion tho.. why cant you just allow it to be what they beleive abnd not try to introduce " mental illnress as a possible cause" etc? ifthats how this place operates, then whywouldnbt there ber as medical perspecives section on the christianity page, as an example...? 05:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
a good first question i ask anyone who wants to know what i bleieve is ( well, irl ) "define belief?" see i beleive in nothing, i need no bleief because i emeember things that proove what i say to me, whats the point in bleief when you have your own personal prooof? Gabrielsimon 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't checked the report and so I don't know whether it's true or not, but you can't just delete it. Others may want to check it out. You may, of course, register your objection underneath it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
hes only puttoing that because he didnt get his way, as he always does things. i was trying to make the word allegedly go away, becasue theres no room for such terms in an articvle about belief. " alleged spritual differences" what the hell is that? you know? how can anyone , aside from someone who can SEE and commune with sprits actually know anything about spirutala differences, hence, who is such an authority on them in order to use that word there. simple logic, that word alleged, doesnt belong. i tried explaining after he stubbornly refused to thinkm, but that didnt get anywhere. Gabrielsimon 05:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i did no such thing. Gabrielsimon 06:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i am SO low on patience for burocracey.... i tried doing the one revert thing, dreramguy refused to think, i tried a second and third time, he refused to think then too so i made a small change which IS DIFFERNET with an explainatiohen i made a small change with another explaination, hoping to actually get him to see and stop endlessly reverting, i made no four reverts. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Alleged spiritual difference
one,
two,
three, and
four times. I don't know what the "one revert thing" means, nor am I following much of the rest.
El_C
07:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
the first three edits were not all that was there in those, if your going toi go around being a judicator, at leeast pay attention.
Gabrielsimon
07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then over the course of he day, DreamGuy did the same, reverted three in the sam e spot as you odnt like what i id, and another beforehand.
Gabrielsimon
07:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
also, the first three are yes, of what yu said, the other is DIFFERNT, of mine, so if you are going by the rules, thne i only did three and not hte ciritcal fourth, becasue the edits themselves are diferent. Gabrielsimon 07:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then youre not looking, there was another entire section to the first three that your ignroing, convientantly. Gabrielsimon 08:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
use the ones yuou already have and scroll down.
Gabrielsimon
08:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Alleged spiritual difference
; I already explained why above, several times.
El_C
08:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)\
so your gonna be one ofTHOSe admins whoi block on technicalities. greaaat.... Gabrielsimon 08:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
just woke up, still groggy... but that woulnds good., Gabrielsimon 20:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
more awake now. seems like a reasonable course of action.
Gabrielsimon
21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
fine. ill agree to that.(been thinking) Gabrielsimon 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, I am sorry to see that you have given up your agreement to follow a 1RR rule. This is not something that requires "attention" or needs to be "worked on". This is something that is very easy to do: stop making the same change over and over. I had hopes you were giving this a good-faith effort, but you have just been blocked for a 3RR for at least the eighth time. If you want people to leave you alone, like you've been asking, then stop reverting pages -- please! - grubber 10:09, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
pehaps i am too stubborn... Gabrielsimon 20:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i do not liek being under a microscope, its stressfull... so i suppose all i can do is ask that people trust that i am attempting to workj how they asked. i will lily be putting any significant idea onto talk pages before latering the article itself, this way no one can ever reverty my changes based on lack of explaination.
Gabrielsimon
00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
deal. Gabrielsimon 12:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for pushing for the medical perspectives to be added on otherkin. Having just now read Talk:Otherkin, I've seen that it is indeed original research and shouldn't be there for that reason. Nickptar 18:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
no problem, im just glad that, even on the Otherkin talk page, the action seems to have resounding support :) Gabrielsimon 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i see Sam Spafe keeps trying to insist that his way is the best way, when the rest of us dont agree, would someone kidly revert his insistant change? ( do i act like him??) Gabrielsimon 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes you do. And I edited his edit a couple of times, hoping to make things better. You might notice I did not simply revert his edit. Instead I tried to put it closer to what seemed reasonable to me, which happens to be a combination of the desires of some of the disagreeing editors. Friday 02:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i personally like what fuelwagon put... perhaps we should change itto that.? Gabrielsimon 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of the content really belongs on Talk:Mysticism where everyone can see it. But I'll check out FW's version and let you know what I think. Friday 02:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(response to FW on Talk:Mysticism. Friday 03:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) )
hes grasping at straws, just becasue he says tis self eviant doenst make it so, he should find sources or shut up and go away, i say... oh , wait ,there arent any sources.... maybe he should just shut up and go away then ( referring to the ever annoying DreamGuy) Gabrielsimon 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Theriomorphics and Otherkin are vbery different. they might seem simmilar to outsoders., but they are vbery different, Theriomorphs are generally naturally occuring creatures ( werewolf for example) whereas Otherkin are those who 's spirits are of eings of a supernatural nature ( elnari is a good example) and nierther community would accept being labelled as the other, i asked a bunch of both... Gabrielsimon 03:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(this probably belongs on one of the relevant article talk pages, but..)
It looked to me like the Otherkin sites out there varied widely in their definitions. Noty all of them agreed with what you're saying here. Are these differences you're explaining the result of your own research, or do you have a source?
Also, should "Species dysphoria" be the real article, with sections on Otherkin and Therianthropes as the two main divisions? (Are they the two main divisions?) Friday 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
my sources would be called by you dubious, conisdering, so ill forgo showing them, to save time. species dysphoria is something that happens to Feral Children, Theriomorphs and Otherkin is vastly different. Gabrielsimon 03:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i suppose that works better, but you can see why species dysphoria is omitted? also id say that otakukin are pretty close to fictional... but of coursethats simply my opinion, though i do have experiance with knowledge ofalternate realities, einstien himselfbeleived in 16. also , the reason i simply let my own perosnal sources be called dubious doenst make me trust them less, its imply that they are... unconvincing for thoer who havnt reade extensivly, shall we say.
Gabrielsimon
03:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
http://www.otherkin.net/index.html http://www.shadowsden.org/ Gabrielsimon 04:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
these arent my primariy sources, just where i got my introduction, it takes a godo deal morer easearch to see that the two groupps are close knit, but separate, thats like trying to compair a Vampire ( possibly vampire lifestyle follower, possible actual vamprie, some people are hard to read) to someone whos , as an example, dragonic, both have Other sides, but they are vastly different lycanthropes simply refuse to allow themselves to be lumped togeather with vampires, and so , there are also those among the otherkin comunity who insist on variations of the differences you have posted above. its really quite complicated and quite simple at the same time... Gabrielsimon 04:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
also, go to otherkin,.net and look up therianthropy, likewise go to the other site and look up oherkin. post these alongside , please.
Gabrielsimon 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, some places squish them all togeather as one, though as explained, its not how many of the people who are the subject matter would have it. Gabrielsimon 05:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
this si why i feel its best to at least leave the three articlesseparate, Therians, Otherkin, and of course any others, forthe simple distinction of Natural Creaur and Supernatural Entitiy. seem fair? Gabrielsimon 05:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
a lot of it depends on how common kin-types become, jsut like with therians, theres an entirearticle on werewolves, but there isnt one on were tigers, or were jackels ( or in once case that i met) a were buffallo ( the african kind) Gabrielsimon 05:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
he refuses to listen to reason, and keeps reverting to his way, or nothing, so i would suggest blocking him for being a pain ( coming from me, this is probably laughable i know) Gabrielsimon 04:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just got over an eye infection (due to a chalazion), and am unemployed since Friday, so I know how you feel. Look after your eyes, and good luck with the job hunting. Rich Farmbrough 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks. best of luck to you.
Gabrielsimon
12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
if this" Hi Gabriel. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. You can still edit this talk page, though. Best, El_C 06:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)" (note the date and time) is when i got blocked, isnt it after 24 hours passed now? and yet i am still blocked. camn anyone fix this? Gabrielsimon 12:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i havnt done anything like that. i wish to be unblocked now please, its been long enough. Gabrielsimon 01:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks!
Gabrielsimon
02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade's insitant reverts to that page are bordeing vandalism, becasue hes coming from a POV that he seems to think is the only way. please examine the talk page and the edsit history to se what i mean. Gabrielsimon 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Witchcraft#References_for_post-Columbian_origin_of_witch-accusations. Friday 00:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
post colombian is the only way, becasue of the simple fact that the word and its comnnotations are european in origion.
Gabrielsimon
00:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
my beef is really with te with trials bit, most of the time, there were no execcutiopns, no matter how bad the offending magic user was ( according to hat evidance i can find in oral hustories) the worst thing thath appened was a banishment. tho those were usually temporairy... might it be good to procide words that tend to tranlaste into "Witch"? Gabrielsimon 08:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit summary. As a result, although I removed the King James reference, I changed the topic sentence to show the list is for "Smith's works" - not just LDS scriptures. I hope that reduces the confusion for everyone. Peace. WBardwin 05:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please understand, it's not that I'm "following you around". We have several of the same articles on our watchlists, I suspect. But, you need to understand: the RFC on you means that other editors may be scrutinizing your edits. I'm not trying to harass you, so I won't post here anymore. However I won't simply give up on editing articles either. Friday 05:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
you really need to stop pestering me.
Gabrielsimon
06:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 24 hours. -- khaosworks 09:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
i do hope i was not out of line.
Gabrielsimon
09:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they would be up for VfD quick as a heartbeat if you did, for non-notability. -- khaosworks 12:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
what about after i started publishing the series? Gabrielsimon 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
well it would just be so that people would get it right.... i dislike it when people get things wrong about what i do... search for " simply terran" for a short story of mine... you might like it.. ( its only about apage and a half) Gabrielsimon 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Several users provide a link to their website or blog on their user page, or post an image of their artwork. Just don't turn it into a gallery or an obvious self-promotion page. Your user page poetry, for example, is quite acceptable. NoSeptember 20:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Gabriel,
I hesitate to get involved, and obviously I know that yourself and User:DreamGuy don't necessarily get along, but do you really value the edits by User:69.194.72.40 to the Lilith article? Most of their edits yesterday, such as this, were pretty poor and self-aggrandizing. I can't see any reason to think that the web site they reference from the Lilith is in any way credible - some of the quotes there are quite obviously wrong. -- Solipsist 06:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
ceretainly. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
lil help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon Gabrielsimon 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
as i have said before, i do not get angry, i feel its beneath me to do so. so no worries. Gabrielsimon 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Yo. What's with the deletion of entire sections of the article? Vashti 10:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
medical perspectives is origional research, according to slimvirgin. also i archived the talk. Gabrielsimon 10:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I can talk to you here if you like. As you might have seen previously on your talk page, I'd stopped leaving you messages here because you've deleted many of them, and said I was annoying and my messages were useless. From your recent edits on Mysticism, I see that you're not following 1RR. Other editors have complained of similiar failures to observe it.
This is an optional rule; I don't believe anyone's forcing you to follow it. If you've decided not to, I think you should at least say so. The last we'd heard from you on the subject was that you were agreeing to it. Friday 20:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i do wait like 12 hours betwen edits ( vbecause i do them before and after i sleep) however, mystisim is sopmewhen you have to look at everything thats going on, i keep chanigng things back to how on thetalk page things were decided to be, can you not see that the word, by definition divinity is more then enough for all divine beings? (and i was having and am having horrible times, checkl the section of my user page titled lately... (( also, pleae readt he poetry of mine section and tell me what you think)))
Gabrielsimon
21:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
yopu did miss a lot. most of my changea to that article, ifyou look ath te history are discutive or repariative in nature.
Gabrielsimon
21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
my perception of time is a little wonky since ive been soick, from my perspective i thought a day had gone by from whjen i made the change till when you did... cause i went to sleep betweeen... btw, whatyou think of the poetry? Gabrielsimon 22:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i thought the 1rr was a varient of trhe 3rr rule...
Gabrielsimon
23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
it might also be goood to note that i aint 70.28.160.144 Gabrielsimon 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
id like to think i am above such reprehensible behaviour... it doesnt even sound like it can be taken seriously... sock puppets, who can talk to one of those without giggling? Gabrielsimon 23:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i am learning how to get my points accross without stepping on toies. Gabrielsimon 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
i am at my wits end with this annoying perrson, so DreamGuy, GO the (bleeeeeep) aaway. LEAVE me ALLONE, find some other hobby... in other w ords STOP BOTHERING ME. i can edit MY talk page however i see fit, its not RUDE of me to edit out what i dont want to hear, and if your claiming that it is wrong of e to edit things off of my talk page from toher editors then your a HYPOCRITE, now, to RE iterate, GO AWAY, STOP bothering me, LEAVE me ALONE and above all else, try to have an otherwise fabulous day. secondly i only remopve your lies.
Gabrielsimon
00:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, are you incapable of understanding that you *must not* interfere with the evidence presented in the RFC? You're only hurting yourself by doing this, and every time you violate the RFC procedure you make it more and more likely that all this will end up with you being banned. Is that what you want? Vashti 01:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC) DreamGuy complains every time someithing doesnt go his way, his words on that page will damn me with no just cause. i cant just let that happen. Gabrielsimon 01:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I hate to play the Devil's advocate, but your RfC, as DreamGuy's, cannot be deleted. Dbraceyrules 01:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then fix the template to say close becasue orsomething, please/. i cantstnad the constant badgering, im tring, things take time... Gabrielsimon 01:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
this is constant harrassment, i wish it to stop, its DRIVING ME nuts, i have done everything i can to get then to fuck off, but no ones having any part of it, I JUST WANT THEM TO FUCK OFF AND LET ME OUT OF THE FUCKING PETRIE DISH, I WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE. Gabrielsimon 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i can put up with constructive critisism, easily enough, i cna adapt to what people want, easilyenough, but this is beyond annoying, i cant tolerate constant harassment.
Gabrielsimon
02:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
do you know what its like to have many people judge you on criteria thats not fit for judging osnoene on? doyou know what its like to have ones best efforts thrown back in to ones face? i admit im sensitive, its a part of what and who i am , but after what, amonth now? of people putting me under a freaking microscope, im getting REALLLLLLLLY sick of it
i want to be left in peace. no one gets that i am trying to change things to thier requests, all they o woth thier constant harassment is to badger me and annoy me farther. this is not usefull.
Gabrielsimon 02:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
--Gabe, I'm sorry to have to say this...and you can just delete this comment off your talk page if you want to...but there's a reason you're in "the petrie dish," and that's because of edit after edit you've made that people have a problem with. If you simply wish to be left alone, you can leave the Wikipedia project. But if you wish to edit and contribute to Wikipedia pages, you will be held to certain standards, and you will be subject to scrutiny--just like me or anyone else. And I'm not sure that you've acknowledged that your behavior is at fault, and you accept that, and you intend to change it. Your pattern of behavior seems to be to get into an edit war on some topic, then back off when the heat gets too high, only to go start another edit war on some other topic, and so on, and so on, and so on. You remove paragraphs from the article on the September 11 attacks, then move on to edit the language in the Trail of Tears, then move on to wolf hunting, etc., etc., etc. This is why there is an RFC. I'm still not at all convinced that you actually understand that there is a _problem with the way you are using Wikipedia_, and not merely a bunch of people who have decided that they don't like you. As for the latter, I have seen the enthusiasm you bring to Wikipedia, and nothing would make me happier than for you to bring your energy, passion and dedication to Wikipedia in ways that the community can value...constructive ways. But you seem to have a _lot_ of trouble working within what the wiki communitiy considers NPOV, avoiding original research, etc. Let me give a few examples: in editing the 9/11 attacks article, you simply erased the paragraph dealing with the recovered videotape that seems to show bin Laden admitting responsibility for the attack. Now, you said that it was an obvious forgery, but that is _your_ POV--it certainly does not represent a consensus view of that piece of evidence. The most you should have done is add a sentence or two CITING REFERENCES that call the authenticity of the tape into question. As another example, you repeatedly insisted on identifying the Trail of Tears as a "death march" instead of a "forced relocation." This is problematic because "death march" is very opinionated, loaded language, and is not the most appropriate way of dispassionately describing what the purpose of the event was, or how it happened. You will not find the statement "The Trail of Tears was a death march," in the first paragraph of many encyclopedias, I will wager. Again, you might have made your point in a more appropriate fashion by including language on how many people died en route, the manifiest lack of concern on the part of the US Army, etc., and then said "in light of these statistics, the Trail of Tears might well be considered a 'Death March,' comparable to the infamous 'Bataan Death March,' in which XX out of XX people perished en route." That is the kind of work that distinguishes an encyclopedia article from a political manifesto, and, Gabriel, I need to be perfectly frank here--I rarely see you put forth that kind of effort in your edits. THAT is why there is so much attention on you right now.
I know you may not appreciate these kinds of comments on your personal talk page. Like I said, please feel free to delete this--I won't take offense. But I think you would profit a great deal, and so would Wikipedia, if you would take a minute to stop looking at this RFC as a pure persecution, and ask _why_ you have attracted so much negative attention.
And, look, it kind of pains me to say this: but it is really insulting when you make edits to the encyclopedia, as opposed to a talk page, and you don't seem to check your grammar or spelling at all. I know that you have some problems with your vision, but that is really no excuse. Don't you have a word processor program with spell check? (If not, you can download one from Sun for free.) Then type your edits into that, and paste them into the encyclopedia afterwords. I mean, we all make typos and grammar errors, but it looks like you just don't care about the basics, time and time again. I'm talking about things like capitalizing sentences. It's really rude to make absolutely sloppy edits that other people have to clean up for you. If it's hard for you to get spelling, typography, etc., correct, that that is just an indication that you should put more time and thought into your edits, and a level of effort that shows respect for the Wikipedia project and everyone that is contributing to it.
I will be out of town on business next week and away from the Internet in all likelihood, so I may not be present to see how the RFC process plays out. But, in all honesty, I have tried to offer the above comments in a constructive spirit, and I hope you take them that way. I think you have a lot to offer to Wikipedia...but, honestly, you have a lot of issues to overcome as well. I hope you will consider what I and other people have had to say. -- Craigkbryant 03:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
the infomration removed from the september 11 article cncerned when they said that it was a definiate fact that that bil laden gu said he was responsible for the attack, which , if you research it, was later found to be quite likly a fake , as for wolf hunting, fault me for trying to show people what happens, if you wish... as for my typing style, i have damamged arms and hands, from when i was hit by a car , its actually quite painfull to type, and i am trying to work around that, to try to contribute anyway... check, for example the residential school article and the mysticism article's edit histories to see where i have handled myself better. and you seem to ber trying to help, so i respond, attempting to be just as respectfull . people like DreamGuy on the other hand seem to only wish to complain and harass, so i delete his words for thier sheer annoyancec. Gabrielsimon 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i stuck to the facts, and didnt instert overly inflammatory language, even though my grandfather went through that experuance, its to proove that i can do things right. Gabrielsimon 03:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
most of the article section in he candaina ersidential school section there was my work that was merged from a different article. Gabrielsimon 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
My best advice to you: Ignore the harassment. Don't even bother deleting it. Just ignore it.
Once you ignore the harassment, hopefully you'll see that in addition to the harassers, there are also some good editors trying to get you to change how you approach making edits. Friday 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
please leave me alone, ive asked you before , and you wont. Gabrielsimon 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you feel better now? I hope you are alright. Dbraceyrules 04:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i try really hard not to get mad, but sometimes i fail... sorry...
Gabrielsimon
04:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The fight was an uphill battle, and it was agreed upon that he not add POV or anger other users in the future. I had also stated that I'd be more than happy to revert my vote if I saw any evidence that he went against the agreement. I hope this doesn't anger you, but it's about time some things settle down. Compromise was the only way here, but if I see anything rude by DreamGuy, I'm will take my signature off and whatever he may do as evidence Dbraceyrules 04:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
he "promnised" not to put in his own POV, so hes been doing so more sneakily, look at the OTherkin article andsee how he trtied to put quotes arounbd every mention of a phenotyple... which he meant as " by the waym,, these people are wrong" sort of quotes.... Gabrielsimon 04:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i am speaking ofearlioer versiojns. quetion tho.. why cant you just allow it to be what they beleive abnd not try to introduce " mental illnress as a possible cause" etc? ifthats how this place operates, then whywouldnbt there ber as medical perspecives section on the christianity page, as an example...? 05:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
a good first question i ask anyone who wants to know what i bleieve is ( well, irl ) "define belief?" see i beleive in nothing, i need no bleief because i emeember things that proove what i say to me, whats the point in bleief when you have your own personal prooof? Gabrielsimon 05:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't checked the report and so I don't know whether it's true or not, but you can't just delete it. Others may want to check it out. You may, of course, register your objection underneath it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
hes only puttoing that because he didnt get his way, as he always does things. i was trying to make the word allegedly go away, becasue theres no room for such terms in an articvle about belief. " alleged spritual differences" what the hell is that? you know? how can anyone , aside from someone who can SEE and commune with sprits actually know anything about spirutala differences, hence, who is such an authority on them in order to use that word there. simple logic, that word alleged, doesnt belong. i tried explaining after he stubbornly refused to thinkm, but that didnt get anywhere. Gabrielsimon 05:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i did no such thing. Gabrielsimon 06:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i am SO low on patience for burocracey.... i tried doing the one revert thing, dreramguy refused to think, i tried a second and third time, he refused to think then too so i made a small change which IS DIFFERNET with an explainatiohen i made a small change with another explaination, hoping to actually get him to see and stop endlessly reverting, i made no four reverts. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Alleged spiritual difference
one,
two,
three, and
four times. I don't know what the "one revert thing" means, nor am I following much of the rest.
El_C
07:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
the first three edits were not all that was there in those, if your going toi go around being a judicator, at leeast pay attention.
Gabrielsimon
07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then over the course of he day, DreamGuy did the same, reverted three in the sam e spot as you odnt like what i id, and another beforehand.
Gabrielsimon
07:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
also, the first three are yes, of what yu said, the other is DIFFERNT, of mine, so if you are going by the rules, thne i only did three and not hte ciritcal fourth, becasue the edits themselves are diferent. Gabrielsimon 07:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
then youre not looking, there was another entire section to the first three that your ignroing, convientantly. Gabrielsimon 08:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
use the ones yuou already have and scroll down.
Gabrielsimon
08:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Alleged spiritual difference
; I already explained why above, several times.
El_C
08:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)\
so your gonna be one ofTHOSe admins whoi block on technicalities. greaaat.... Gabrielsimon 08:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
just woke up, still groggy... but that woulnds good., Gabrielsimon 20:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
more awake now. seems like a reasonable course of action.
Gabrielsimon
21:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
fine. ill agree to that.(been thinking) Gabrielsimon 02:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Gabriel, I am sorry to see that you have given up your agreement to follow a 1RR rule. This is not something that requires "attention" or needs to be "worked on". This is something that is very easy to do: stop making the same change over and over. I had hopes you were giving this a good-faith effort, but you have just been blocked for a 3RR for at least the eighth time. If you want people to leave you alone, like you've been asking, then stop reverting pages -- please! - grubber 10:09, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
pehaps i am too stubborn... Gabrielsimon 20:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
i do not liek being under a microscope, its stressfull... so i suppose all i can do is ask that people trust that i am attempting to workj how they asked. i will lily be putting any significant idea onto talk pages before latering the article itself, this way no one can ever reverty my changes based on lack of explaination.
Gabrielsimon
00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
deal. Gabrielsimon 12:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for pushing for the medical perspectives to be added on otherkin. Having just now read Talk:Otherkin, I've seen that it is indeed original research and shouldn't be there for that reason. Nickptar 18:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
no problem, im just glad that, even on the Otherkin talk page, the action seems to have resounding support :) Gabrielsimon 01:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i see Sam Spafe keeps trying to insist that his way is the best way, when the rest of us dont agree, would someone kidly revert his insistant change? ( do i act like him??) Gabrielsimon 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes you do. And I edited his edit a couple of times, hoping to make things better. You might notice I did not simply revert his edit. Instead I tried to put it closer to what seemed reasonable to me, which happens to be a combination of the desires of some of the disagreeing editors. Friday 02:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i personally like what fuelwagon put... perhaps we should change itto that.? Gabrielsimon 02:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of the content really belongs on Talk:Mysticism where everyone can see it. But I'll check out FW's version and let you know what I think. Friday 02:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(response to FW on Talk:Mysticism. Friday 03:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC) )
hes grasping at straws, just becasue he says tis self eviant doenst make it so, he should find sources or shut up and go away, i say... oh , wait ,there arent any sources.... maybe he should just shut up and go away then ( referring to the ever annoying DreamGuy) Gabrielsimon 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Theriomorphics and Otherkin are vbery different. they might seem simmilar to outsoders., but they are vbery different, Theriomorphs are generally naturally occuring creatures ( werewolf for example) whereas Otherkin are those who 's spirits are of eings of a supernatural nature ( elnari is a good example) and nierther community would accept being labelled as the other, i asked a bunch of both... Gabrielsimon 03:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
(this probably belongs on one of the relevant article talk pages, but..)
It looked to me like the Otherkin sites out there varied widely in their definitions. Noty all of them agreed with what you're saying here. Are these differences you're explaining the result of your own research, or do you have a source?
Also, should "Species dysphoria" be the real article, with sections on Otherkin and Therianthropes as the two main divisions? (Are they the two main divisions?) Friday 03:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
my sources would be called by you dubious, conisdering, so ill forgo showing them, to save time. species dysphoria is something that happens to Feral Children, Theriomorphs and Otherkin is vastly different. Gabrielsimon 03:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i suppose that works better, but you can see why species dysphoria is omitted? also id say that otakukin are pretty close to fictional... but of coursethats simply my opinion, though i do have experiance with knowledge ofalternate realities, einstien himselfbeleived in 16. also , the reason i simply let my own perosnal sources be called dubious doenst make me trust them less, its imply that they are... unconvincing for thoer who havnt reade extensivly, shall we say.
Gabrielsimon
03:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
http://www.otherkin.net/index.html http://www.shadowsden.org/ Gabrielsimon 04:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
these arent my primariy sources, just where i got my introduction, it takes a godo deal morer easearch to see that the two groupps are close knit, but separate, thats like trying to compair a Vampire ( possibly vampire lifestyle follower, possible actual vamprie, some people are hard to read) to someone whos , as an example, dragonic, both have Other sides, but they are vastly different lycanthropes simply refuse to allow themselves to be lumped togeather with vampires, and so , there are also those among the otherkin comunity who insist on variations of the differences you have posted above. its really quite complicated and quite simple at the same time... Gabrielsimon 04:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
also, go to otherkin,.net and look up therianthropy, likewise go to the other site and look up oherkin. post these alongside , please.
Gabrielsimon 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
yes, some places squish them all togeather as one, though as explained, its not how many of the people who are the subject matter would have it. Gabrielsimon 05:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
this si why i feel its best to at least leave the three articlesseparate, Therians, Otherkin, and of course any others, forthe simple distinction of Natural Creaur and Supernatural Entitiy. seem fair? Gabrielsimon 05:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
a lot of it depends on how common kin-types become, jsut like with therians, theres an entirearticle on werewolves, but there isnt one on were tigers, or were jackels ( or in once case that i met) a were buffallo ( the african kind) Gabrielsimon 05:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
he refuses to listen to reason, and keeps reverting to his way, or nothing, so i would suggest blocking him for being a pain ( coming from me, this is probably laughable i know) Gabrielsimon 04:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just got over an eye infection (due to a chalazion), and am unemployed since Friday, so I know how you feel. Look after your eyes, and good luck with the job hunting. Rich Farmbrough 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks. best of luck to you.
Gabrielsimon
12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
if this" Hi Gabriel. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule. You can still edit this talk page, though. Best, El_C 06:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)" (note the date and time) is when i got blocked, isnt it after 24 hours passed now? and yet i am still blocked. camn anyone fix this? Gabrielsimon 12:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
i havnt done anything like that. i wish to be unblocked now please, its been long enough. Gabrielsimon 01:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks!
Gabrielsimon
02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade's insitant reverts to that page are bordeing vandalism, becasue hes coming from a POV that he seems to think is the only way. please examine the talk page and the edsit history to se what i mean. Gabrielsimon 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)