User talk:Gabrielsimon/archive4

Witchcraft

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)

Sorry, gabriel, but that makes no sense. That's like claiming that there was no meat in North America until Europeans arrived because the word "meat" is European. They had meat, they just called it by a different name, but the concept was exactly the same. Same with witches. A lare number of scholarly sources have been given proving this, yet all you do is claim that it isn't possible? Why no actually read the books and websites that were pointed out to you instead of just declaring yourself right and ignoring everyone else? DreamGuy 19:37, July 24, 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)

Joseph Smith, Jr.

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)

Following

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)

Fartbag

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)

No, he was pretty obviously a vandal. --khaosworks 09:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your characters

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)

Same thing. Wikipedia is not the place for anything that is not already established or spoken of by other sources. No original research, no news accounts, and most of all, no advertising. We talk about stuff that can be sourced, and that other people are discussing already. --khaosworks 12:49, July 24, 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)

I can only tell you that creating these articles as you propose would probably cause you greater frustration in the end when people send them for speedy deletion. I suggest you engage your energies elsewhere on Wikipedia, or write these character articles on other on-line encyclopedias that will accept such articles. --khaosworks 13:21, July 24, 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)

Lilith

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)

no, that users edits are mosly rather weak, and had i the time earlier today i would have fixed them , which is why i kept putting them back in, i felt they were salvagable... sigh, but i didnt getthe chance to fix it up, because whenever i tried, i either had to put it back , or was called away for money making stuff... Gabrielsimon 07:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. In that case I suspect the better approach is for me to revert it back to how it was, and if you can find anything salvageable in the edits you can pick them out of the edit history when you get time. -- Solipsist 07:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

ceretainly. Gabrielsimon 07:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Your message

lil help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon Gabrielsimon 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried, but there wasn't much I could do as so many editors signed against you. In the end I suggested a compromise.Dbraceyrules 14:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope your not mad at me, but that was the only solution that seemed plausible. Dbraceyrules 00:04, 28 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)

otherkin

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)

Sure, I can talk to you here

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)

I read the talk page, yes. There were at least 2 editors I saw other than me who thought God and divinity should both be included. Maybe I missed a whole bunch of people saying they didn't both belong, but to me it doesn't seem like there's a clear consensus against both. However, the right thing to do when someone changes your edit it to talk about it, don't just change it back. In fact, the one-revert rule is: "if anyone reverts your edits then leave it in its reverted (ie, original) state and discuss it on the talk page."

Notice that even though I and other editors think both "God" and "divinity" belong in Mysticism, I'm not instantly changing it back. There's an editor who has already given a good explanation of why they do not want both, so we're discussing it on the talk page in a civilized manner.

Here's a key thing to learn: if you're frequently reverting, other editors may be more quick to undo your reverts. I try to only revert if I think something is clearly wrong or against consensus, and can't be fixed. I always try to explain WHY I'm reverting. Better than reverting, is fixing the new edit to make it neutral and factual. Friday 21:35, 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)

I'm not trying to say you've made no good edits to that article. I've seen you make good edits; I already know you can do it. I've seen you revert vandalism. These are Good Things. However, I am trying to say you just recently violated the 1RR on that article. I changed your edit. You reverted it back. I'm not saying you committed a terrible sin or anything, I'm just saying you haven't been following the rule you agreed to. If you don't want to agree to the rule anymore, nobody's forcing you. Friday 22:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I would point out that your agreement to follow 1RR was your one and only tiny concession to an RfC that showed numerous extensive violations of policy on your part. Going back on your agreement to do that one tiny thing would show you have made no attempt at all to learn from your mistakes and is more likely to escalate the arbitration case against you. DreamGuy 22:36, July 31, 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)

Again, I must be clear: The one-revert rule does NOT say anything about time! This is not the first time you've come up with bizarre, irrelevant-to-the-rest-of-us reasons for your rule violations. It appears that you do not experience the same consensus reality that the rest of us inhabit. Please don't take offense, I'm not trying to say this is either good or bad. I'm just saying it is, and that it sometimes renders you unable to follow guidelines and policies here. You need to recognize this difficulty and be extra careful to avoid problems. A suggested remedy has been the 1RR, depite some editors' objections that this is not enough. You would be doing yourself a favor if you would not undo other editor's changes. You've already demonstrated poor judgement about when it's appropriate to revert, so it may be best not to do it at all. Friday 22:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, his claim appears to be absolutely false anyway. His edit history shows that he made the changes to Mysticism within four hours and that he was editing articles between then. The claim that he thinks a day had gone by in that time is simply unbelievable. DreamGuy 22:59, July 31, 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)

You should have read the one revert rule before you agreed to follow it, I think. In either case, now that you know what it is, you should choose whether or not to follow it. I'm glad you're not 70.28.160.144, because if you were, I'd expect one or both accounts would be ostracized for sockpuppeting. Friday 23:26, 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)

But not, apparently, above the reprehensible behavior of removing comments from other editors... DreamGuy 23:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to think you are, too. But do you understand that many editors have considered your behavior reprehensible? And do you understand why? Friday 23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

i am learning how to get my points accross without stepping on toies. Gabrielsimon 23:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You call deleting contents off your talk page about your poor behavior and lashing out at people on your RfC talk page trying to discuss your latest poor behavior as "learning"? You aren't just stepping on toes, you are running around stomping on lots of peoples' feet. DreamGuy 00:19, August 1, 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)

RFC

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)

You're damning yourself every time you interfere with the procedure! Every time you delete evidence, every time you break your commitment to the 1RR, every time you do these things you're proving everything DreamGuy says about you is correct. Please be patient and let it go. To be honest, I think the best thing you could do at the moment is to stop editing while the RFC and Arbcom submission are resolved. Save your energy for those. Vashti 02:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

There isn't a template you can place to stop the badgering, you have to wait until the discussion is closed. It is killing me to do this. I am very, very sorry Take care, Dbraceyrules 02:01, 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)

Okay, I'll just get off my computer now. Have a nice night. Dbraceyrules 02:11, 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)

Seriously. Take a break. Wikipedia isn't everything, and it will still be here when you come back. It's not worth getting this upset about. Vashti 02:17, 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)

I do know what it's like, in fact. And I know it's hard to walk away. But surely you can see this isn't worth what you're doing to yourself? Vashti 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I tried to support you to the best of my ability. I know it may not seem like it, but I have. I have noticed that other Wikipedians hae been extremely rude also, and perhaps very unwelcoming. If they can't see what you and your edits are worth, you can only move on. You are a true asset to this encyclopedia, and I hope that you won't get that upset again, and trust me, that is how I have felt at times. Dbraceyrules 02:36, 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 hadn't noticed residential school until you pointed it out here. I'm not sure why you're giving that as an example, your POV is quite apparent in your edits there. IMO, this goes to show that you do not understand the difference between facts and your own POV. I think the suggestions for a break from Wikipedia while you think about this are wise. Friday 03:39, 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)

Your edits on residential school look pretty POV to me: "genocide" (in fact, that could be called inflammatory language) and "unreasonably severe punishment", for instance. It may be better than your usual but is still not properly NPOV, as evidenced by two separate reversions. Nickptar 04:50, 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)

Harassment

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)

Of course the problem isn't that he needs to "Ignore the harassment", it's that he needs to stop pretending he's being harassed when other editors are only doing what they should be doing, which gets in the way of him having his way. I've tried time and time again to explain to him what he needs to do to have his edits stay, and I still give him links to appropriate policies that he needs to read and follow. He hasn;t done thought, he just freaks out when the same things he did three months back that get him into trouble still get him into trouble now. DreamGuy 04:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

please leave me alone, ive asked you before , and you wont. Gabrielsimon 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you calm?

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)

Well, its obvious that I didn't get off the computer. I can't blame you for getting mad at times. Dbraceyrules 04:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I voted to close the argument with DreamGuy

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)

Gabriel, those aren't quotes... or at least they don't show up as quotes on the page. Those make the words in italics when the article is displayed, per the manual of style for when you are refering to words as words instead of using them normally in the sentence. In fact I took the quotes off of many of those words and turned them into italics. DreamGuy 05:05, August 1, 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)

I don't see how this won't work as long as all parties stick by their agreements, I'm not trying to betray you or anything, Gabrielsimon. Please forgive me if you feel this was a wrong move. Dbraceyrules 05:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no medical perspectives on Christianity, but if there are some (from actual academic sources, of course), they should be added. You may not want medical perspectives on otherkin mentioned, but that's how NPOV works. If you don't like it, leave Wikipedia; but I suggest you get over it and learn to tolerate skepticism of your beliefs. It'll do you well in the real world. Nickptar 05:15, 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)

3RR page

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)

But that's not the point. If it's a spurious report, it will be self-evident from the evidence he presents. If it isn't, it will be, too. Why can't you trust the admins to make a judgment? By deleting potentially adverse reports against you, you're the one who ultimately looks bad because it looks like you're covering up your own wrongdoing. If you did nothing wrong, let us have the opportunity to see that. --khaosworks 05:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know it's horrible to be reported for things you feel you haven't done. Perhaps, instead of looking at it as lying, you could think of it as mistaken or wrongheaded. I don't know anything about the report or the article it's about, but I'll take a look later when I have more time. We've all had things written about us here that we disagree with, and when it happens, the best thing is to stay calm and state the facts in your defense. And if you did the thing you're accused of, just apologize and, if there's some punitive admin action, take it on the chin and wait for it to pass. That way, people will respect you for your honesty. Try not to violate the three-revert rule (3RR) no matter how right you think you are about any issue, because you may be blocked. Admins aren't allowed to judge who's right or wrong when they block for 3RR. Let me know if I can help in any way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

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)

i did no such thing. Gabrielsimon 06:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, is that addressed to me? Are you contesting the block? El_C 07:04, 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)

I am sorry to see you upset, but I dispute that claim. You reverted 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)

In fairness, I am trying to. But the point is, it dosen't matter if they were'nt, that word was deleted/reverted more than three times. El_C 07:45, 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)

The "another beforehand" edits were not reverts, so you are wrong there. DreamGuy 08:13, August 1, 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)

I still fail to see how the 4th one was different: if a specific portion is reverted in any context, it's reverted. El_C 08:02, 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)

It isn't a matter of convinience or anything — I'm simply not seeing it. Please provide pertinent diffs to substantiate your claim. Thanks. El_C 08:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

use the ones yuou already have and scroll down. Gabrielsimon 08:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's still a revert of 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)

On the contrrary, you cannot exempt yourself from policy everyone else is expected to adhere to by trying to invoke a technicality yourself. I say "try" because it's a nonargument. You inexplicably persist in viewing a revert as an exact, linear repetition of an edit. That is false. El_C 09:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I'm glad to see that you managed to stay unblocked while I was on vacation. I'm proud of you. Now it's time to move up to the next level.

When I can't make another contributor see it my way, I limit myself to one edit per day of the disputed text. This allows everyone else to see how reasonable I am being! My views are even more unpopular than yours are, but I've never been blocked - even before I became an admin - because I believe in lose the battle, win the war.

So stop trying so hard, and just explain your proposed contribution on the talk page - and leave it alone. Yes, for an entire day at a time!. Agree to this, and I'll unblock you instantly. Uncle Ed 19:33, August 1, 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)

Gave up on 1RR?

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)

• Gabriel, you have 20 editors now that are trying to help you. There appear to be a couple that have a vendetta against you, but the rest of us are offering our services to help you. We want you here, but you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. You think you have a lot of people watching you now? If you can't work with us to find a common ground, more people are going to add their names to your RfC and it's going to get exponentially more difficult to escape out of this. I'm begging you man, let's work our way out of this quickly. - grubber 00:29, 2005 August 2 (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)

• That's a great initiative. Controversial edits are hard to make, for everyone. But, there are also issues with your methods not just your edits. Repeated reverts and removal of comments from talk pages cause problems. No more 3RR's ok! - grubber 09:27, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

deal. Gabrielsimon 12:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Medical perspectives - OOPS

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)

mystisism

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) )

BTW, notice what happened there. I made a civilized edit and explained myself. FW came in and edited things, but left in the term I'd added. Neither one of us got EXACTLY the version we first wanted, but we're both OK with how things are now. This is how you work things out with other editors. Friday 03:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

otherkin... and stubborn people.

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)

for friday's benifit. theriomophs vs Otherkin=

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)

OK, your source is dubious. And it conflicts with other dubious sources. How do we know which ones to use? Do you see now the problem with dubious sources?

I'll try something else. How about these divisions?

Believing you're a:

Real creature : Therianthrope

Supernatural creature: Otherkin

Fictional creature: SomethingKin??

Is that about right? Friday 03:39, 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)

two of my more credible sources

http://www.otherkin.net/index.html http://www.shadowsden.org/ Gabrielsimon 04:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

From otherkin.net:

Otherkin is a collective noun for an assortment of people who have come to the somewhat unorthodox, and possibly quite bizarre, conclusion that they identify themselves as being something other than human.

From Therianthropy:

In recent times, a subculture has developed that has adopted the word therianthropy to describe a sense of intense spiritual or psychological identification with a non-human animal.

To me it sounds clear from these definitions that Therianthropes are a type of Otherkin. Friday 04:27, 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)

You should do your own research; I won't support your arguments FOR you. However I can tell you that otherkin.not uses the word "therianthrope" only in one place. Will you admit that at least some sources (even ones you like) define "Otherkin" in a more general way than "Therianthrope"? And would you agree that under at least some definitions, Therianthropes are a subset of Otherkin? Friday 05:08, 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)

Sifting through various conflicting sources of equal reliability and picking one view to present as "fact" is original research. You want to apply your own POV here, and you can't tell the difference between your own opinion, formed by original research, and facts. This is exactly why we don't do original research; it leaves conflicting editors at a dead end, with no way to resolve their conflicts. We need to fall back on reputable sources and state only the facts. Friday 05:20, 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)

So every person who wants to invent a type of Otherkin gets their own article, in which to put their own opinions? That's exactly what we do not want. We need verifiability. Remember what Wikipedia is not. Friday 05:27, 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)

about sam spade

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)

Don't be so self-effacing. Everyone has equal rights at Wikipedia (editorially speaking), so if my ol' buddy Sam is giving you a hard time, speak up about it. Do you know how to make diffs? Uncle Ed 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

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)

why am i still blocked?

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)

Looking at the block log, the original block on you username has expired as you expected, but there is an autoblock on an IP address that you may be using. The relevant entry is;

07:18, 2 August 2005, El C blocked #29461 (expires 07:18, 3 August 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gabrielsimon". The reason given for Gabrielsimon's block is: "3RR".)

I'm not totally sure how autoblocks work, but it is something to do with trying to edit without signing in whilst you are on a block. If this is an error, you could ask User:El_C to lift it. -- Solipsist 13:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I saw being discussed, the autoblock an the IP address resets the period of the block when the editor tries to sign out and use an IP address anonymously as sockpuppet edits. I believe the 24 hours starts from the last time he tried to edit an article from that IP address. So if he was trying to ge around the block the block will continue until 24 hours past that period. DreamGuy 01:55, August 3, 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)

Email User:El_C and ask him to look into it. DreamGuy 02:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I've undone the autoblocker. You should be all right to edit now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

thanks! Gabrielsimon 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm troubled that within minutes of acknowledging your unblock, you immediately made a change, it was reverted, and you reverted it back again. [1] then [2]. Have you already stopped the whole 1RR request? - Chairboy 03:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happned. I blocked Gabrielsimon for 3RR violation as I had a few other editors. Anyway, I'm glad it was resolved. El_C 03:44, 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)