User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 22:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC

Thoughts

am i the only one whos name is my user id here?

No. For two off the top of my head, see MarkSweep and Ashley Pomeroy. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

And User:Angela, User:Jimbo Wales, and myself (Nick Paul Tarleton). (See, we're in good company.) Nickptar 22:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I removed your question from the NPOV page because we don't allow questions and discussion on ARTICLE pages. If you'd like to put it on the article's discussion page, or on the Village pump, you might get an answer. Rick K 23:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Akashic record

I know exactly what the Akashic Records are. It's fiction. Like much of the work you're trying to foist off on the encyclopedia as fact. And yes, there have been people who have had symptoms similar to vampirism. There are many different verifiable diseases which can have symptoms like allergy to sunlight -- lupus, for one.

By the way, if you want to add your User signature to your posts, use three tildes - ~~~~, or four tildes, if you want to include a date and time stamp. You're signing your posts GabrielSimon, but your User id is Gabrielsimon. Rick K 23:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

if its fiction how come i and others can access it? just because your prescious science can not find or explain it, it HAS to be fiction huh? and you call yourself open minded.

Gabrielsimon 23:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is. NPOV means verifiability, not faith. Rick K 23:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

gained knowledge that works is not faith, it is practicality.

Gabrielsimon 23:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

also, you saying that it is fiction when you can not proove it is POV. Gabrielsimon 00:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

Unilaterally saying anything is false is POV if there are people who dispute that, but so is unilaterally saying it's true. The NPOV way is to say "some people say X and present <evidence>, but almost everybody says not-X based on <other evidence>".

Also, in any case of extraordinary supernatural claims, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.

Science is a POV, but it's a POV that works. It only needs to be presented as a POV in articles where there's a major conflict between scientific and other views (e.g. Creationism). In general, it's standard to just talk about the generally accepted, scientific claim as fact in most of the article, and in a "criticisms" or "allegations" or similar section, mention "some say <other point of view>."

Nickptar 01:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(On second thought, the sentence I've striked out is wrong. See [1]. Nickptar 02:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science and supernatural dont s eem to reconsile, and all i am saying is that science need not be the POV for dealing with the supernatural... ive seen a lot to back up this line of thought.

Gabrielsimon 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So say "Some state X, others state Y", and present the facts and evidence surrounding that. No big deal. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion has some good comments on this. Nickptar 02:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your excellent questions

Hey, good buddy, welcome to Wikipedia.

I cut your excellent comment from the article page to the TalkArticle page here if that is okay. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that will be interesting to see what becomes of it.

Gabrielsimon 02:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True. As you might surmise, you dig at a real and chronic problem here on Wikipedia. There is much to be done. And not just on that NPOV page. What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science is ok for nice toys like computers and such, but science and the world reconsile as this in my mind, sceince is just this little kid racing to catch up, to understand, and may have missed somethingcritical in its hurry.

Gabrielsimon 02:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice poem. I boldly clarified your poem on my TalkPage, if that is all right. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 02:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what

Gabrielsimon 02:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you approve of the editorial markup I did to your beautiful poem on my TalkPage? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sure... but it would be nice to get an answer as well...

Gabrielsimon 03:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking. Your excellent verse provokes thought! ---Rednblu | Talk 03:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

science is ok for nice toys like computers and such, but science and the world reconcile as this in my mind, science is just this little kid racing to catch up, to understand, and may have missed something critical in its hurry.

also, as for creationism and evolution, why's it matter? really... gods can create things and then change them right? why not try to find a way to reconcile both beliefs? [ Tough questions by Gabrielsimon ]

Your questions have made me think for a long time. Since I have relished this time I have spent with your questions, I thank you fully from the bottom of my heart that loves good questions--and I particularly like your poetic style that reminds me so much of e e cummings. In contemplation of your questions, here is what I came up with: Reconciliation is good, but my mother and my father would have very different reconciliations of creationism with evolution.
1. My mother would reconcile the two beliefs the same way she reconciled good and evil--God made them both, and God is good while Satan is evil. Hence, my mother would reconcile creationism and evolution by saying, "God made both, and creationism is good, and evolution is evil. But God made them both."
2. My father would reconcile the two beliefs the same way he reconciled good and evil--both evolved from the antelope fleeing the lion--and what is good for the lion is evil for the antelope. Hence, my father would reconcile creationism with evolution by saying, "The human creationism that hungers for the Creator, sees the Creator, and hears the Creator is totally the product of natural selection and the other processes of evolution." ---Rednblu | Talk 05:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thing is that good and evil differ from viewpoint to viewpoint, an example is foerge W, while i agree that a good deal of waht he does is probably good for his country, he ses his war mongering as good, whereas the residents of the countries that live where the wars are see it as evil, the same goes for the conept of terorism, he calls others terrorists for " going on to foergn soil with millitaristic intent to harm" or soime such, when that is what he keeps sending rtooops to do, spoecually in csouth america.

now im not trying to spark a pro or con bush debate, all im saying is that its a good example.

Gabrielsimon 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you have some excellent insights there. Have you tried to put those insights into a poem. In my opinion, you could do quite a good rant and rave on what you just said. I would like to hear what you come up with. :)) Very much. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

idiocy

i find it strange that small minded idiots keep vandalizing pages all over this site....

Gabrielsimon 03:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About Dream Guy

I see that a-hole was giving you trouble too. I vandalized his site about 20 times, but apparently he is too much of an arrogant prick to get the message. I also saw how he insulted you I am very sorry about that.

Once an a-hole always one.

From User:Dbraceyrules

i dont resort to vandalism, but i do wish someone would stab his intenret connection cable...

Gabrielsimon 04:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let him piss you off enough ... you'll start vandalizing. I thought the same way.

From User:Dbraceyrules

i dont vandalize, i simply use some of my diverse talents to, shall we say, exact revenge.

email me for what i mean Gabrielsimon 12:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Harassment

Stop adding stupid comments to my talk page, immediately, or I will report you for vandalism. You and USer:Dbraceyrules not so secret attempts to get "revenge" and insult me and so forth are a clear violation of Wikeipedia policy. I've had more than enough. Stop now. DreamGuy 21:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

i never insulted you. iun fact i have been clearly quite nice . you shold stop bothering me now, please. Gabrielsimon 21:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it seems that dream guy seems to not know hoiw to take a peice of contructive critisism, too bad, guess hes gonna stay mad at me and possibly the world.

please note to all and anyone, that i have not harrassed him, i have simply put the following question on his page, and when he deletes it without ansering me, i ask again, casue i want an answer.

it is as follows "if so many people keep vandalizing your page, dont you think that your approach to them is wrong perhaps?" or a varient thereof. Gabrielsimon 21:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

If you want to pursue your issue with DreamGuy, the process is discussed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

much appreciated!

Gabrielsimon 22:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

shinto

anyone know of any canadian shinto shrines?

im itching to learn more.

From User:Dbraceyrules

He claims that we confess to "revenge" on our talk pages. What revenge do you extract on him...by the way, he knows all of our conversations, or at least appears to.

he seems to wnat to play the martyr when hes really not able t o, by the by do you think my mod to his talk page is vandalism? and is insiting on an answer to a blaringly obvious question vandalism , or jsut trying to get him to see the root of the problem. howis helping the guy revenge? is he deluded? possibly needs glasses? cause hesnot reading whats there. Gabrielsimon 02:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course inquiring about his responses is not vandalism. ou are much more complacent than I am, because I have (proudly) cussed him out, and I once put a picture of Hitler on his page. Yeah, I know, it was childish, but he pretty much pissed me off.

sinking to the level of a child is what he wants, then he can pretend to be all high and mighty and the poor victim, or so it seems. no, i am a more complex being then trhat, i will ask the question until he has the sense to answer it and go from there. if he doenst have the abillity to look beyond his current scope of things, then people will vandalize him forver, becasue he wont change. also, i did not mean to imply that youer being childish... o and if hes reading, i wonder, where is the revenge in this idea? wheres the hatred?

Gabrielsimon 02:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am fed up with DreamGuy to the point that I have decided not even to worry about posting anything, not even vandalism, on his "talk page" as it has proven to be a waste of my time. I just say we drop it if he is willing to, and if not, file a false report on him for vandalism, and let him get in trouble.

thing is, that would also be stooping. if he wants to be immature and such about EVERYTHING, as seems to be the case then so be it, but i will contunie to ask him the question until he at least answers it. i am showing him some respect by attempting to help him see, so he should at least aknowldge it, isntead of crying as if hes been stung by a bee. some people simply amaze me in thier lack of manners.

Gabrielsimon 02:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- In that case, I feel pretty guilty.

dont worry about it, im guessing your younger then me, in which case, maybe its a new leaf actually turned, o great, now im sounding like grand dad... any hoo, feel free to email me, actually, if you did wish to speak. also, whats done is done, all we can do is move foreward, so whats the point of feeling guilty in that light? its good that peoplerealize error, but guilt , fear, and sorrow really are wasted emotions, for they dont help us to move foreward ( ok, in fear, it helpsus to keep moving from time to time, but you get my point)

Gabrielsimon 02:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

to User:Dbraceyrules

dude, you shouldnt erase anything on the vandal page, its bad form, and well, while i apprecaite he support, why not add it in after the argument, some might think the erasure to be vandalizm, or an attempt to cover some such thing.

Gabrielsimon 03:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbraceyrules I removed all my comments about the man, I forgot to do that last night. lol. Hope everything is well with you.

RE: GabrielSimon, re-email me on my site or yours, it does not matter

Yeah, it is amazing. But, you were right about me doing some childish things, but really I think that since this place offers me so much anonmity, that I have confused this with a "playhouse" which I am going to stop doing. I tried to make DreamGuy a truce, so you accidentally scoffed at him (that time) Because I told him that I would be willing to stop if he would hear me out... much similar to your pleas with him. However, I am just fed up with him. I did not erase my name again, I just decided to add his. Justifiably so... he calls you and I juveniles on several occassions, and called me a "troll" lol. You can read my note I left him on my user page. I explained he respoinded to it. Angrily, I decided to leave some rather not so nice remarks about him, again stooping to his levell. And yes I am much younger than you, "you kinda did sound like my grandpa [who is deceased]" Lets just let DreamGuy in peace. I know that I have came off as immature with some of my remarks, but trust me, "Dbraceyrules" is way different than me in person.

thing is, he keeps using his opinions of whts possible to mess with me and my edits, which annoys me greatly. oh well. i guess ill just have to deal with his annoying behavour, and hope thatkarmic law drops some sort of heavy thing on him.

Gabrielsimon 03:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...like his Internet shutting off, or his monitor smoking, sparking, and breaking!!!! Bet that'll change his pompousness. I wish someone would cut his phone cord.

i doubt anything so small would change his ways, if he wont do something as simple as listening. its a pity really, he seems to have a brain, now if hed only use it.

Gabrielsimon 04:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it would be nice if DreamGuy read the following:

In order to confirm that GabrielSimon is not a vandal I copied this from Wikipedia:Vandalism. Read it and weep DreamGuy.

Bullying or stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

That's changes to an article page where other editors want it discussed on an article talk page first. Repeatedly posting harassing comments to a user talk page is vandalism. You both know you are just doing it to piss me off. If you cared about Wikipedia rules you would have given up a long time ago. DreamGuy 05:20, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

all you had to do was answer the question. and i would have left you alone.

Gabrielsimon 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

theres a problem withyour staement, see, i havent said anything ude, or anywhere near harrasssing, therafore your statement is ludicrous, also, nice try on the vandal page , trying to show only a piece of the truth to gain favour. such immaturity is hardly toerable. Gabrielsimon 14:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 10 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whoopsie! Gabrielsimon 13:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

strange

i keep talling epople the truthg of mattersa and they keep changing things back, its gettiung annoying. Gabrielsimon 22:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

You recently made an edit to DreamGuy's talk page, which had an edit summary that states "reverting my edit." You did not revert your edit: you vandalized one of DreamGuy's own comments on his own talk page. This is vandalism, and a particularly petty and childish sort of vandalism. Please stop. Surely you have better things to do than to continually harass users who have indicated in every way possible that these communications are unwelcome. Joyous 00:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

pardon, but a while ago he typed alking, so i corrected his spelling, later on, he was saying how he didnt want to have me putting stuff there, so i took off that edit to proove a point, i do not cpnsider this vandalism, but i will not edit his page any more. also, please look at his contributions to vampire lifestyle, he has scored for 4rr , and also, please read the talk page, and consider arbitration, he uses his opinion to trey and contest everything i say on that page, and then accuses me of doing such, i simnply am trying to remove a comment that is quite likly something that has no place in an encyclopdia.

User:Dbraceyrules

Hey,its me again. I recently tried a new approach with DreamGuy and I really agreed with him on a point he made about Tim McVeigh. I'll update you on how he responds...

apparently he loves compliments, but scoffs the "constructive" criticism he gives others.

Response to your comments on my talk page

As far as I can tell User:DreamGuy has not reverted the page more than 3 times within 24 hours. If you disagree please report it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Although of course I will do what I can to try and arrange a mutually satisfactory settlement between the two of you I would suggest you try Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Requests for comment.Geni 00:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

spaming multiple users talk pages is not a normal part of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Geni 00:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i am not spaming, i wanted all three to look. this way there would actually be smoe discussiobn and realization about this. Gabrielsimon 00:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbraceyrulesabout DreamGuy

TOOK OUT OLD NOTE

reverting and resorting to vandalism will only get him to play the victm some more, so i would advise against it. ill leave your insults in, casue they arent mine, just be warned that you enegaged in personal attacks... so someomne might get mad, and i reccomend rewording it. other then that ( and other then the insults) i do tend to agree. Gabrielsimon 02:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's the point that I am trying to make... I did not insult him at first, i complimented his discretion on Timothy McVeigh but he still gets uppity saying that I had "tested" him. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand being civil to someone, and even friendly to him at one point and they go back to their hateful ways. Everything that anyone can say about him is the truth. He has other vandals on his User Page... and several more in the past (besides myself)... clearly the fault of his. But you, Gabrielsimon seem to be cool and collected, but that really pissed me off when he decided to say I was not "so bright" when I complimented him. I'd say what I think he is...but since you seem adverse to personal attacks I think that not be wise. Take care,

from User:Dbraceyrules

allowing immature insults and playing of the victim of his can really irk one at times, but if we readt to his lack of manners and lack of civillity then we are no better. so i dont realt with emotion, tho his maturity shows when he reacts like a small child would. makes me wonder...

Gabrielsimon 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(also, good for you for destroying the insults,m they have no place on this site. Gabrielsimon 02:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I still don't understand how much incivility one person may have...why would you revoke someone offering peace, and continue to insult them after they offered peace? I am in a dilemma trying to figure this guy out. I don't even remember insulting DreamGuy on the old note that I had taken out. Apparently I am so upset with him that I unintentionally screw with him..kind of like the Freudian "id" I just don't understand the man. Other people are insulting him, probably ten on his site in the past months... and he still thinks that he is right about everything. He gets mad when you put anything on his site...but he's posted several notices on this one and both of mine. And will change them back if ou take them off. How do you explain it?

see how immature this person is, he mixes homophobia with stupidity, and if you look at hthe wording, its clear this person has no brain... do you agreee? Gabrielsimon 00:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vampire Lifestyle

This article may have a number of style problems; that is because it was in bulk written by one person. However, it is not biased against the members of the sect. It may seem that way, because from an encyclopaedic precpective such beliefs look fairly absurd. This is not to say that they are, but it is to say that we cannot claim that they are true without significant evidence from a third party. This applies equally to this sect and to the Roman Catholic Church; we would not say that God definatively exists any more than we could say that otherkin are legitimate species, or that vampires exist in reality. You can believe what you want, but Wikipedia needs to uphold a reputation of sanity and if we were to claim certain things, many people would dismiss it.

Furthermore, I would ask you to refrain from deleting information without cause. It is absolutely absurd to assume that they themselves would object to being called thus; and indeed they do not as they themselves have published this information. It is for those reasons and those stated by other users that you should refrain from modifying accepted facts and data present on this page.

--139.142.154.129 19:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anonymous person, i do not do things based on my opinions, i have seen and experianced things you likly havnt,m and i deleted some of the "facts" which arent facts,based on the wishes of thirty lifestylers that i know. Gabrielsimon 22:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That anon terrorist guy got banned

Good job. DreamGuy 11:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

i find it amazing how ludicrous he is... but, well, gotta have some crazies to make us feel closer to normal, yes?

-)

Gabrielsimon 11:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(btw, truce? it would probly be better if instead of being reverted, just being fixed up a bit by you eedits mightb e better...... casue i know i suck at typing))

I guess we are all in the same camp... because I saw the guy vandalize DreamGuy, and later tried to "ban" him. Even I was laughing at this. I thought that DreamGuy deserved a Barnstar, so I decided to post one on his website. I hope he isn't still mad...but I couldn't foresee anger on his part as I was really repulsed by a death threat that some troll put on his page. I mean, how low can ou stoop... it is crazy to not only commit Wikipedia vandalism, but also a federal offense at the same time. BTW, please respond to this. Dbraceyrules 00:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i find it amusing that someones dense enouigh online to think they can kill someone ... without knowin where theyll be and all that, so i didntake that seriously... really tho, how dumb do idiots have to be before they stop and think " maybe i shouldnt say this" etc... geeeze

Gabrielsimon 00:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know!!! But are ou talking to me, or DreamGuy? Dbraceyrules 00:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

both actually. (im a stubborn guy, but even im notTHAT bad) Gabrielsimon 00:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, Dream guy doesn't seem to be on a computer right now... but I was about to say that I would actually be a little afraid of a death threat...because you may never know who is out there... I mean people are usually skeptical on identity theft until it happens to them. You know what i mean?

i get it, yeah, but me, i have my own ways of dealing withg actual theewats... online if someone pisses me off enough ,tis trace IP and instert BIOS virus on thier machine (no more turning that computer on , ever, i think) otherwise, irl, im six foot eight , andi can handle myself, so i say to threateners they aught think twice. it realy is all in the attitude or so i think... in either case, an internet death threat cant possibly work, under normal circumstances.

Gabrielsimon 00:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I guess that would be stooping...but I don't really care (please don't do that to me... ). I just think that it was stupid for them to try to give Dream dude a death threat, and then try to "ban" him. And ou have to give it to him...DreamGuy seems like a pretty intelligent person, but some wacko thought they could pull a "fast" one on him. LOL Dbraceyrules 00:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

unfortualty, morons and idiots make up a large contingant of the worlds population, and we cant cull them, so i supposeall we can do is sit back and wait forthem to hit each other too muhc or something simmilar.

as for hte death threat, i dont know where it is, but if it happened then it was uncalled for, tho quite ludicrous ( and i wont do such to anyone dont worry... youd have to bother me for a while, and you have yet to begin) yes he is smart, but hes stubborn, a bit to much kuijke me in that way i suppose.... doesthat mean i annoy me? uh oh.... (self damming realiszation)

Gabrielsimon 00:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that most people are idiot...but I still would watch my back...like I said, many people don't think things like indentity theft could happen to them until it does....so...careful would be me! Dbraceyrules 02:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gabriel Simon, its been a while since I posted an e-mail, but i have recently been pushed with a lot of IB work. And yes, I do think that whoever put threats on DreamGuy's site is still an idiot. I mean...you couldn't be more right about people being, or at least the majority of people being, pretty much stupid. All I know is, that DreamGuy seems pissed off about some other things, but I still think it is amazing how the tables have turned! (Me and him getting along...and us both being against another vandal making death threats).

Note posted on DreamGuy's site that I had told you about

BTW< forgot to post this note in the right spot. Here you go.

They posted this note, on 29 April 2005, with a anon user IP address. Yes, it contains profanity, revert this as soon as possible:24.164.211.25 05:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

profanity

- you are profanity profanity u had blocked my last account for trolling when i didn't!!! You will pay i will kill you and your whole family! I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!!!!!! + - \

( edited out profnaity where applicable Gabrielsimon 06:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)) What a moron, right!

This was to DreamGuy...look under his history, he put a note right above it talking about a death threat. Dbraceyrules 00:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TO ANY OUTSIDE WIKIPEDIANS, I WAS NOT THREATENING ANYONE, BUT AD MERELY POSTED A DEATH THREAT THAT I HAD WITNESSED ON THIS PAGE... THIS IS NOT VANDALISM

dont worry dude, i know it, but i took out the profanity, for civillity's sake. Gabrielsimon 06:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this dude really is a dumb person... making threatsm no matter how undoable, is rather illigal, i think. Gabrielsimon 09:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gabriel Simon, its been a while since I posted an e-mail, but i have recently been pushed with a lot of IB work. And yes, I do think that whoever put threats on DreamGuy's site is still an idiot. I mean...you couldn't be more right about people being, or at least the majority of people being, pretty much stupid. All I know is, that DreamGuy seems pissed off about some other things, but I still think it is amazing how the tables have turned! (Me and him getting along...and us both being against another vandal making death threats). Dbraceyrules 00:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver prehistory

the ice age wouldnt matter, if you look at the natve views on things, the bering straight pland breidge thery is simply laughable, so this is why its put there. sources can be procured to support this if dsired.

Gabrielsimon 18:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there was a huge sheet of ice covering Vancouver up until about 10,000 years ago. Not likely anyone living there at the time. Sunray 18:18, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

then explain the inuit, who live on what canbe said to be frozen wastes, therafore, your argument is rather suspect. Gabrielsimon 12:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Inuit don't live on glaciers, they live on tundra. There is plant life to support animals to support people on tundra while there isn't any plant life to support animals to support people on a glacier. — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

arent you forhgetting the possibllity of the sea supporting people, and i never said the inuit live on Glacier, i sid they live on frozen wastes. the sea provides bounty that can support many people. i have read some books when i was in university about this.

Gabrielsimon 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What covered Vancouver 10,000 years ago = sheet of ice = glacier, as far as I can tell. Far harsher than tundra. Nickptar 22:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you just totally ignored what i just said. Gabrielsimon 22:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you missed Saxifrage's point. The Inuit don't live on glaciers, but for people to survive 10,000 years ago in Vancouver, they would have had to. (I don't know enough to say how much of an impediment this would be, though.) But this is beside the point; if you can provide a source, as you say you can, to justify the 400,000 years number, doing so will make this much simpler. Nickptar 22:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i heard what they said, and i only know from books i read atthe unb university library, which had a lot to do with archeology and the bering straight theory. once again you missed the point about living from the sea as a food source though.

Gabrielsimon 23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Scientifically, your stats are completely unsubstantiated. Sorry. I am an archaeologist/anthropologist. Current research indicates that humans did not cross the land bridge until perhaps 30 - 50 thousand years ago. To date, no data has been uncovered to suggest that this number should be older. Your argument is further thrown in to question by the fact that 400,000 years ago, anatomically modern H. sapiens had not even yet evolved. Current evidense suggests that hominids occupied only Africa, Asia, and perhaps Europe at that time. As for other claims that glaciation would have stymied the ability of humans to sustain themselves in North America, this is also not true. Glaciation was in fact, necessary to expose the Bearing land bridge. Research suggests that humans travelled south via corridors in between ice sheets and exploited interglacial periods to settle the Pacific coast (Again, this only happened 10 to 40 thousand years ago). Also, Saxifrage is correct. The Inuit do not live on glaciers... that's just goofy.

Also, what books have you been reading? In my whole career and education, I have not encountered a single legitimate source that substatiates your claim. Please let me know.

Tyson2k

science has been prooven wrong before, and it will be again, that is all i have to say on that matter. Gabrielsimon 00:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielsimon, I see that you deleted the above comment by Tyson2k. I assume this is an accident. Nickptar 00:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

could be my brother messing with my computer ...

Gabrielsimon 00:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science cannot be proven. It cannot be proven to be true or to be wrong. However, different theories have different degrees of acceptance based on the volume of credible evidense. The amount of evidense supporting the above is very large. That is not to say that ideas won't change... in fact, they likely will. However, I don't see them changing to the extent of which you would likely believe. There simply is not enough to refute what I have presented in a compelling way. Here's a challenge for you: go to a library (a real library)... do some thoughtful research with legit sources and make an INFORMED JUDGEMENT. I'm pretty sure you have not done this, or you would have listed them as per about three or four requests to do so. I don't care what you believe... just make sure that you look at both sides so that you can make informed opinions... particularily if you wish to contribute something valuable to Wikipedia. That my friend, is what science is all about. It is definitely NOT about simple proving or disproving. Tyson2k 07:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to anonymous users, but if you dont sign your name, i delete your posts on my page. as for the comments, i have done significant research , nad yes, legitimate research.

reverted and fixed. Tyson2k 07:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielsimon 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We want specific sources. Nickptar 01:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson2k, your insulting me, i did research in a university library, how more real is that? also the point of what im sat=ying seems to have been lost on you.

Gabrielsimon 07:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read an encyclopedia that listed in its references "I researched this at university, please take my word that it is true"? Likely not, and there's good reason for it. Wikipedia has standards of citation just like a paper encyclopedia, and if you cannot provide references that other people can verify then the information is going to be deleted as unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean it is or isn't true, just that it can't be accepted in an encyclopedia article. — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

try this, go to a university near you, preferably not an american one, and look this stuff up yourself before you join the bandwagon of pick on me people.?

Gabrielsimon 10:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Civility.

The point that you are missing is that you are attempting to include information without citing your references—it doesn't matter whether you are right or not. If I went to my university library (I'm not American, thanks) and looked it up, then I would be the one expected to provide references. This encyclopedia isn't here for people who have access to a university, it's here for people who have access to Wikipedia. If you're not interested in providing references and you're not going to continue to insert figures lacking such, that's fine and there's nothing to discuss. Nobody is trying to pick on you—these rules (see link to citation policy above) apply to all editors. You're only getting special treatment because you're essentially saying that you should be exempt from Wikipedia policy. — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize. I did not intend to insult you. Like other users, I was merely suggesting that providing references for figures might be a good idea. I was also suggesting that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to reject perfectly valid data simply on the grounds that "science can be proven wrong", or that it doesn't jive with your personal opinions. Tyson2k

Otherkin

Hi. I saw that you'd removed one of the quotes I added to the otherkin page - are you contending that I edited it in such a way as to alter its meaning? I believe the way I excised from it was common practice - that is, I removed unnecessary text that was not required for the reference (in this case, the irrelevant first example in the reference, as indicated by the ellipsis). If you believe I quoted dishonestly, could you perhaps explain to me where I did so? Thanks. Vashti 21:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i beleive that the inteire quote would be better then putting in a incomp;llete quote, for it can seem misleading, therafore i asked you to put the whole thing in.

Gabrielsimon 22:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that we should include unnecessary and irrelevant information in the article. The appropriate thing to have done, though, would be to expand the quote yourself rather than remove the information altogether from the article - if I hadn't happened to go back and look at the article history, it would have been lost forever.

Shall we ask on the article talk page and see what the group think? Vashti 22:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i am not very knowing of protocol, but yes, that suggstion seems good. but i must point out that medical and scientific perspectives mean very little when dealing with spirituality. Gabrielsimon 22:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a great fan of that section myself, and I'm thinking about ways to rework it - however, since it *is* there, I was a little surprised that you'd removed some of the information I added for balance. I'll put up an item on the issue of the quote. Vashti 22:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not trying to be rude, but what DOES a medical perspective have to do with a spiritual movement? has anyone ever accused , for example, christians of being medically unsound?

Gabrielsimon 22:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they have - look up Joseph and Diduca's research on schizotypy and Christianity.

This isn't a bias thing. I'm otherkin myself, and the first time I heard about the suggested relation to schizotypy was on one of our mailing lists, where one of us had noted the similarities. Whether we agree with it or not, it is a common theory that should be in the article. Please don't remove it - the way you're going, someone is going to complain about you at some point, and I'd rather it didn't have to be me. Vashti 23:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if theres going to be a medical perspectives section in every spirituality related article, then leave it be, otherwise, its a bias to e leave it there. Gabrielsimon 23:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as this is one of the very few cases (possibly the only case) where members of the faith/community/whatever acknowledge the possibility. Vashti 23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

that may be, but as i said, there is no need of it, unless theres a need of it in every single spirituality related artivle. Gabrielsimon 23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ook. I agree with you that otakin finding resonance with modern media is likely and happens, but since it's so commonplace, could you perhaps find and cite some sources for it? Kinjou's otakin site might have something. Vashti 09:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since the page only cites the otakukin as an example, and they aren't the main target of the page, there isn't actually a need for detailed information on them. Would you consider moving it to the entry on otakukin, which could use the help? Vashti 09:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change it to newly awakened reincarnated otherkin , and move it appropriatly iin the article, a yor discretion i guessm its just a point i was trying to make.

Gabrielsimon 12:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice

As far as I can tell, regimen rather than "regiment" seems the more appropriate word there, so I reverted. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 02:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it was a typo. Gabrielsimon 13:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

(Removed from Talk:Canada)

Theft: you guys realize that the entire country of canada is on stolen property, as is the USA. Gabrielsimon 13:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, article talk pages are not chat rooms, so I've moved your comment here.

Since you ask, I disagree: the entire country is not on stolen land. We got some of it by cheating and lying. That's not quite the same as stealing. Regards, Ground Zero 17:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lying,cheating, murdering, disoplacing the origional populace by force, which of that isnt theft? Gabrielsimon 18:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that there is not a person on this planet that cannot be considered to be on "stolen land". This trend of "lying,cheating, murdering, disoplacing the origional populace by force" is extrememely common throughout our history. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make the natives of North America unique either. - Tyson2k

euproeans are on thier own land, from time immemoria;l, for exmple, the french were once gauls...

Gabrielsimon 01:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the Romans conquer the Gauls? In fact, they were not actually called Gauls before the Roman invasions and they definitely did not speak a language which was based on Latin like the French do today. You can also go further back: some of those archaeologists who believe that anatomically modern H. sapiens and Neanderthals were different lineages believe that the modern humans may have been at least been partially responsible for the demise of the Neanderthal species in Europe. Nevertheless, it's only a picky detail. - Tyson2k

The Gauls were Celts, as were the original Britons. The Saxons and the Romans both invaded Britain, and Britain invaded Normandy, while France invaded Britain at one point, too. Russians displaced the native Finns as they moved north from modern-day Poland. Poland was later invaded by the Russians. Mexico and much of South America is the result of Spanish conquest, and Spain is the result of Catholic invasion of a Muslim country, and Muslim Spain was the result of a Muslim invasion of a Catholic country. Italy was settled by Greeks who displaced native Italians, Romans took over the Italic peninsula only to invade Greece. The Greeks came from Asia Minor originally. Nobody in the Western world, except perhaps the Irish, live on land that was unoccupied when they got there. — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well then. I think that about settles it. Well said! :) -Tyson2k

the native americans were where they were since before humans can be caleld humans, according to our old sotries, which really, is more credible to me then rather tactless sceintific attempts to discredit that. and this is the western world..

Gabrielsimon 05:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty well accepted that native Americans came across the land bridge (or from elsewhere at least) long after they could be called "humans". Besides which, if they were here since before they were human, they would have evolved separately from homo sapiens and wouldn't be human today. However, I'll grant you native Americans certainly lived here first. On the other hand, they warred with each other quite a bit more than tends to be admitted today, and the more powerful tribes displaced, killed, and assimilated weaker tribes; so, it can't be claimed that they didn't displace anyone unless you want to speak of them, wrongly, as a single people. — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

it is only acepted by european descended scientists who are and always have saught ways of making themselves feel better about how thier ancenstors stole so much., and no, tribes didnt WAR, so much as they faught, women and childeren were never harmed, it was unthinkable.

Gabrielsimon 07:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fought, warred, whichever you prefer—there was killing involved and territory taken. I'm not saying that Europeans are blameless because their victims did similar stuff, I'm saying there is a consistent counterpoint to Western bias that is just as biased in the other direction, and you seem to partake of it. If you can see that, great, because that's terribly useful for finding the truth that lies somewhere in between everyone's biases. If you don't wish to own your bias, though, you're going to consistently have difficulty here. People who push a particular point of view to the exclusion of others encounter tough resistance. — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

itend to trust my peoples ledgends about my people origions more then i trust scientists and thier wackey ideas about ice sheets and land bridges, i have seen a great many research papers on that subject, and none of it seems convnicing, on at leat this - 1 - the time frame is wrong, becasue there are artifacts found in thiscontinat that predate the " land brodge theory" and 2 - why the hell would anyone drag thier people accross literally thousands of miles of frozen wastes??

as for warring and fighting, in the native tribes it was done honorably, t he canadian and amaerican infatries (along with the briotish ones) proceeded with a nearly genocidal zeal towards killing. Gabrielsimon 09:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, what I hear you essentially saying is that you know what you know and you're not interested in integrating outside information into your existing beliefs about the world. Okay, cool, that's good to know. — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

what i am saying is that the land bridge thoery is completly baseless if you examine it closely, and take into account the sinple fact that the timing is off for the proposed timeline. as for othres beliefs, i do tend to listen. and you still have yet to respond to the qeustion i ased earlier, which was "why the hell would anyone drag thier people accross literally thousands of miles of frozen wastes?" Gabrielsimon 19:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't respond to that question because it's totally beside the point. I'm not interested in the land bridge theory per se, which is why I parenthetically said that native Americans at least came from elsewhere than America and not necessarily by a land bridge. The point that I was making was that, no matter how or when they got here, they got here after they could be called human, which you claim is not the case. I realise that you're putting your stock in the creation stories of your people, but I think it's important to note that every native American people have a different creation story—if you're going to edit Wikipedia based on native American creation stories, which one will you pick? The point being, that they don't have any more support than does the story of Genesis or Homer's Illiad. Fundamentalist Christians trying to edit a page about Dinosaurs to fit their Genesis story would be just as blasted (actually, likely more so) as you were trying to edit Vancouver according to your bias. You're welcome to believe what you will, but Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not unverifiable verbal traditions. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

the land bridge thoery is not verifiable, and it can be refuted, simply becasue clovis points have been foundthat predate this theory. that is my basis, among many otherthings, to tell me that its bunk. Gabrielsimon 21:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. I said I'm not really invested in that particular explanation of how they got here. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

and the vancouver thing isnt the point here. the point here is that canadian natives were here firsts, theystole from no one, Gabrielsimon 21:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can easily grant you the first half of that point. However, the point you originally made was that Canada and the USA were on stolen land, and the counterpoint was that this is true of almost everyone. You seem to have a hate-on for European culture, and that's going to handicap you here. Not because everyone has to be pro-European here, but because nurturing a bias of any kind handicaps people here. — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:31, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

i just do not beleive in hiding the truth. i have heard people try to tell me that this poiont of stolen land is not true, and thats totally bull, ive also heard people try to use the wehole " well, might makes right" excuse, which kinda riles me i do hope you acan see the point of not hiding it at least. Gabrielsimon 20:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I can agree with you on that. Too much bad stuff gets swept under the carpet because of guilt, and then it all just gets done again because it didn't get dealt with properly in the first place. I just don't like the Blame Game, because, from my perspective, it spends too much energy on figuring out who should feel awful instead of doing something useful like figuring out what should be done differently next time. To do that, though, there definitely has to be openness about what happened and the role that everyone had in it. — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Canuck symbolism

Greetings! In an attempt to keep the overview article for Canada brief though accurate, I am revising and removing unnecessary language from it. This includes the apparent symobolism of the monarchy; as well, it is not merely apparent (symbolic) but also functional (though I left this out too): see the Canada Act, 1867: s3 9, s4 17. Also note that there are plenty of other places in the overview article and subarticles where this is more pertinent. Thought? Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 21:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

would you mind placing it therin then? i have trouble with keeping track of things Gabrielsimon 22:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cowardice

this was posted on user dreamguy's page, though he is too scared or something to actually answer it, climing harrassment that doenst exist.

because you are wrong, you edited out the proof therof, and then proceeded to go about being pigheaded once more on the vampire lifestylepage. quit it. also, youll note that if you were to actually answer my words instead of being an intellectual coward, id stop posting my words. fiurthermore, i have never seen any mention of youyr wish to have mr falcon stop posting on your page, nor have i seen any mention of said wish towards me. remember, answering with some shred of dignity will make this easier then the repeated posting of this information. that is all. Gabrielsimon 00:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag on vampire lifestyle article

I added an NPOV-tag to the vampire lifestyle article. You removed it without discussion. I assert that that article has an NPOV problem: that's what the tag is for. The correct procedure is to resolve the issue by reaching consensus through reasoned argument, not by reverting the tag. Please put it back. -- 19:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

you show no knowledge of the subject matter. Gabrielsimon 19:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USA

Just a warning, you are exceeding the Three Revert Rule on United States. You will be blocked, if not by me, then some admin, if you continue to violate it. Now is the time to DISCUSS, not disrupt the article simply to make a point. --Golbez 00:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

im not reverting anything, im changing a change that shouldnt be changed, in essance vandalism cleanup.

as for the question you asked, ask it on IM, if anything ok? Gabrielsimon 00:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabe, my friend, I'm telling you - you're getting a bit too close to breaking the rules. I don't want you getting in trouble, so watch it, okay? DS 00:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry man, oh , and if AIMs working, feel free to come around... in either case, what do you think of this issue? ill abide by your judgement. Gabrielsimon 00:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should let you know that I reported your Three Revert Rule violation. You've reverted some nine or ten times today, and there was a similar violation a few days ago. If you want, we can go through mediation or something to discuss the change, but I feel it's unreasonable that you're the only one reverting the change, when there are at least 5 different users (Golbez, Myself, Nickptar, Lord Voldemort, JimWae, and probably others if I wanted to dig into the history), actively opposing your revert. I like the fact that you're passionate. Wikipedia needs passion, but I feel this has gone way past anything constructive. -- Dpark 00:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is always the waythat those who are correct in matters of contraversey are the monority, forexample, gallelaeo, im not calling myself a genious on those levels, but still, it should still be stealing, becasue thats exactly what was done. youll note that momst of the others in this debate are likly americans who are trying everything they can to make america seems as faultness as they can, weather they admoit it or not. Gabrielsimon 01:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I readily admit that the United States is quite fallible, and has been involved in plenty of terrible things. I don't deny that the land was stolen, either. I deny that "stolen" is the appropriate word for a theoretically neutral reference, though.

I don't honestly believe you can frame yourself as a modern-day Galileo, either. Galileo was pushing new scientific discoveries. You, on the other hand, are pushing for the use of a word which you have admitted is not neutral. Both of us could spend our time more constructively instead of fighting over this, if we could simply compromise somehow. -- Dpark 01:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i never siad i was a modern day gelileo, its merely an example, all i want is the ;pure unsoftened truth to be made as public as it is meant to be, ziezing is not a word that belongs in that palce for exactly that reason.

Gabrielsimon 01:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for pushing your judgments, as true as they are or may be. The facts make it clear enough. There's no need to say "He was evil." on Hitler or Saddam Hussein; you just state the facts and let people draw the obvious conclusion. BTW, I'm an American (North Carolinian, in case it matters), and I completely agree that it was wrong; but "stole" is not an appropriate word for an encyclopedia article, not only because it is not neutral, but because, AFAIK, it's very nonstandard (in formal writing) to speak of a government stealing something. Nickptar 01:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

weather it was wrong or right it still occuired, and the theft is still what it was, hence it sould be said as such, i have made no moral bias, if you would like to know about something i have a great moral bias in look ath te residential school acticle, and see how i did not go to far there. even tho the LAST of those schools closed in 1990, and the abuse was never apologized for, i held my toung on opinion, i am doing likewise with this. Gabrielsimon 01:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The pure unsoftened truth is far more complex than the difference between "seized" and "stolen". Stolen is not neutral. Why are you pushing for it so hard? It conveys nothing extra except more judgement. If you want to add a link to another article which properly discusses the conflicts between the US and the Native Americans, then do so. I've already linked trail of tears for you, but changing a single word to "stolen" will not give a better understanding of the conflicts. It adds nothing, and takes away neurality. -- Dpark 01:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is my contention that words must be true, and to thje point, the theft is the truth, to soften it with other words is to let the memery of any who suffered at this fade, if ever so slightly, it is the same reason why we do not say " people were killed in the holocaust" we say people were murdered. sure its neutral to say that they were killed but that doesnt change the fact that they were murdered, see? ( please dont take my words out of context, its merely an example) Gabrielsimon 01:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

You've already been warned twice that you've been reported for 3RR violation, and you've made at least 2 reverts since being warned. You know, you're going to get blocked for this, and it's likely that each additional revert increases the length of your block. Nobody is going to take seriously the assertion that you're fixing vandalism. Please cease and desist. Nickptar 01:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

please leave the word stealing in, it is all that i am after, and if you read my reasons above and actually read them, not cglanceover them, my reasons are justified. Gabrielsimon 01:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only have I stated my disagreement and the reasons for it many times, but you are in flagrant violation of the 3RR regardless of your reasons or correctness. Face it, the consensus is against you. Nickptar 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your reasons arent enough. consesus and correctness are very differnt when dealing with the uninformed.

Gabrielsimon 01:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so sure you're correct? Have you even stopped to consider what everyone else has been telling you? Because it doesn't look like it to me. -- Dpark 02:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seri the native american tribe in the southwest coast

Bold textSeri the native american tribe in the southwest