User talk:Gavin the Chosen

Now editing as User:Gimmiet. --Craigkbryant 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eventual Adminship

I thought it might be nice to keep a tally on my edits and things, so that i might some day soon get to petition for adminship, and actually get it/ heres the kates tpool summary for me (kates tool link gone)Gavin the Chosen 10:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is not that closely related to the number of edits you have. And in absolute numbers you definitely have more edits than even the most strict RFA voters require (probably more than 2000?). I advise you to remove the counter and this section (feel free to delete my comment with it). In the past the community has frowned on editors that obsess over adminship and keep updated edit counts. — David Remahl 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i suppose that might be wise, so its gone, it was supposed to be forthe sake of conveiniance for others, but i suppoe if they aee among those who prevail among giving authority, then they would akready have access to that. good advise. thanks!Gavin the Chosen 10:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth! You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics!

You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some helpful links:

Wikipedia:Merge, for information about merging, renaming and moving pages.
Wikipedia directory is also quite useful.
Meet other new users You may want to add yourself to the Wikipedia new user log.
Assign edits to your username from before you registered.
Be Bold!
Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
Play nice with others
Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
Tell us about you
How to upload files and image copyright tags.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! If you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

∞Who ?¿? 07:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reasons

Hello to you too. I was just a bit surprised, that's all. Keep in mind, though, that time stamps are hard to interpret unless you know what time zone a person is in. I don't need to know, I assume it was early morning. Cheers and happy editing, --MarkSweep 19:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. it was early morn. enjoy life! fraks like me make it intersting at least.Gavin the Chosen 19:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fahnord

Your fnord-inserting mission... what's it supposed to accomplish?

People who know about them won't think it's particularly funny or clever to see them in articles.
People who don't know about them will be puzzled—Wikipedia's not a Discordian temple, so it's not likely they're eager to get enlightened either.

Also, obviously, spurious comments like these are likely to just be reverted. Are you going to edit war over putting them in? Doesn't seem like it's worth it.

There's no good reason to insert them and every reason not to. Wikipedia's not the Encyclopedia Discordia. We're here to collaborate with other people, not to push clever jokes (or, if you like, push a religious creed...) Suppose the Muslems inserted PBUH after every mention of Muhammad's name? JRM · Talk 21:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but this is merely innocent, and it doewnst even show up on articles. if i kept it in subheads and blank space, it woudlnt even bother the editing . can i contunue if i behave with them? ( as in, no four hundred fnords for no reason, four at most)Gavin the Chosen 21:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever you do don't sign them. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Even if it doesn't show up, you shouldn't put your name in an article anywhere. People copy these articles, and it wouldn't be very professional to have the name of a Wikipedian in there.

Which is the second point: people copy these articles, and it wouldn't be very professional to have fnords in them. You can put them in, but don't expect them to stick; people are going to be removing them, and there's not much you can put forth to argue against that. Wikipedians are all volunteers, but that doesn't mean we don't take some pride in the image of the encyclopedia. Sticking fnords everywhere doesn't help. JRM · Talk 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im just out to have some harmless fun. hope you can tell i dont mean anything destructive.

howss about i keep them t talk pages? Gavin the Chosen 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, if I thought you were being destructive I would be much less friendly. :-P

There are lots of places on Wikipedia where you can have fun... but it's true, most of them don't involve editing articles. Visit the Department of Fun, read some unusual articles and check out some of the bad jokes and other deleted nonsense we come across every day.

And if you really want to see some fine nonsense, visit Uncyclopedia, Wikpedia's bastard sister. If you like jokes, there's the Jokebook on Wikibooks... that's all the fun places I can think of from the top of my head.

If your idea of fun is running around inserting fnords on talk pages, go ahead... I don't expect many people to get it or be amused, but it's a free wiki. JRM · Talk 21:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question on my talk page, but having read this discussion, let me quickly add that I don't think it's a good idea, period. It accomplishes nothing and you'll likely be reverted, in which case it would be quite unwise to go on. Meanwhile:

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar

More... • Learn how

Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how

Update with new information

More... • Learn how

Expand short articles

More... • Learn how

Check and add references

More... • Learn how

Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how

Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how

Add an image

More... • Learn how

Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Cheers, --MarkSweep 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Warning

Wikipedia is not a place for "harmless fun" as you put it. You have already wasted a lot of my time with the fnord thing. Now, while I do believe in Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies, you must also be willing to avoid disrupting this project.

No more fnord's. And make sure everything you add to articles is something you'd like to see in print at your school library next week when you're studying for a test. Uncle Ed 21:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

well , what about hte residential school thing? what i added was accurate, and fnordless.Gavin the Chosen 21:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then add it again. As I recall, it was sloppy. It might help if you posted first at talk:residential school and listed the facts you are planning to add to the article. I don't mean to be terse and cold; it's just my writing style when I'm rushed. Cheers. Uncle Ed 17:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fnords

Re. to edits at Poser and comment on my talk page, yes - adding 'fnord' comments to articles is vandalism; it adds nothing. Furthermore, not all browsers correctly render comments and some display them as shown. Not so good. Also, it's a waste of resources (including yours!) - Pete C ^✍ 21:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its Unanimous, my Fnording days are over ( exccept on Xmas, talk pages ( pretty please?) and my birthday)Gavin the Chosen 21:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) - Pete C ^✍ 21:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - edit your signature so that it contains a fnord. DS 18:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good idea ... signature test Gavin the Chosen 18:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Gavin, would you check your e-mail, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

pardon

Please check the time stamps on what you object to. youll find that i did stop when told. Gavin the Chosen 21:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but id say its been longer then fifteen minutes now, and it stilll reads me as blocked. please hwlp..

I've unblocked your IP address (I think). Please check if you can log in now. --MarkSweep 04:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Gavin the Chosen 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAM2 broadcaster

Just got yer message. Nice work on the SAM2 broadcaster article! I've just made a few tidies there - hope that's okay. Welcome back to the Wiki :-) - Pete C ^✍ 08:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank for the kind wordsGavin the Chosen 15:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word racist in residential school system

You wrote:

the residential school system (and indeed the entire Gradual Civilization Act) are blatantly racist

Whether I agree with your point of view is irrelevant. What matters is that this is an encyclopedia. You can't use the word racist as a synonym for "bad" because articles here must be neutral.

You can say that one race or ethnic group is getting different treatment than another. You can also quote someone who calls this sort of thing "racist". But then you have to give a link or other reference to the source. I won't revert this, but you need to fix it. Uncle Ed 20:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ill get on that, but tell me, does not attempting cultural aassimilation and erasure seem rascist? was itnot racisism when Saddam houssain al tikriti gassed a bunch of kurds? Gavin the Chosen 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia doesn't have to say so. It just has to list the facts and let them speak for themselves. That's what NPOV means. ~~ N (t/c) 21:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources #http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/residential_schools.htm

Gavin the Chosen 21:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then i will change it to "Has been called blatenly racist by native groups and others"

hows that? Gavin the Chosen 21:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, should be fine as long as you spell "blatantly" right. ~~ N (t/c) 21:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good! I like has been called X by Y - well done, Gabriel (er, I mean Gavin). Uncle Ed 03:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

I have analyzed your history in response to your request for me to help you deal with the sockpuppet claim that others have raised against you. You and Gabrielsimon both write sloppy and "stylistically similar", thats part of the evidence against you. Also, all four of you are interested in fiction and fantasy, more specifically anime and vampires. Nevertheless, you, Gabrielsimon and the other sockpuppets have written on the same article very few times. Gabrielsimon, Khulhy, Ketrovin, and you meet the Wikipedia definition of a "sockpuppet," although you might just have multiple personalities :-). This is because your oddly similar sockpuppets show up and edit after Gabrielsimon gets blocked. Vandalism reports against your sockpuppets were also filed. Anyway, you still don't seem to be a major threat because the sockpuppeting does not go as far as persistant bocking circumvention, 3RR rule circumventions, and double voting. You should choose one name and go with it, probably Gabrielsimon. You will have to stop any vandalism, pick one name, and resume normal wikistuff such as writting articles like SAM2 broadcaster. Multiple names may effectively erase anything others think of you(as you "start anew"), and may let you edit when blocked, but it is against the Wikipedia Way. You may have other things to contribute and I hope that you do so but this just has to stop.Voice of All(MTG) 23:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't even have to check the contributions, anymore. Just a look at the way you write makes it obvious enough that it's you, Gabriel. Same spelling errors, same grammatical errors — it's all very distinctive and making me rapidly cross the line from annoyance to anger. If this keeps on, I'm afraid I'll be switching my suggestion for a Wikivacation to one of those supporting a permanent ban. --khaosworks • talk • contribs 23:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia was not able to "ban" users, just block them.Voice of All(MTG)

A ban is an indefinite block. People sloppily use "ban" and "block" interchangeably, however. JRM · Talk 00:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, of course it's the same person. So if one gets blocked for cause, you can go ahead and block the other one. But until them, let him play with his puppet. When he writes as Gavin, his style improves a bit. And it's the writing that matters. (Guess how many different sock puppets *I* have? And can you tell me which bureaucrat is really a sock puppet?) Go easy man, go easy. Uncle Ed 03:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never heard of Gabriel, I had to treat the matter as such so I did the research. He attempted to befriend me and RyanFreisling and then gave me a message saying that he was new and didn't know what sockpuppeting was but that he was accused of it. It turned out that he was not a newbie, but at least I made sure. You already know that they are sockpuppets, so it seems obvious to you. What a strange sockpuppet though...Voice of All(MTG) 03:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If he wants a fresh start, I have no problem with that. I have no problems with legitimate sockpuppets - or alternte accounts - as long as they don't get disruptive. However, it's the denial, the deception and the disengenuity I can't stand. --khaosworks • talk • contribs 04:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have tried so many other things in orderto ge away fro a certeain user who folowed my origionbal account around. I only got blocked once witht his one, on a misunderstanding. I have never lied about who and what ma, i simple didnt responcd to allegations, forthe most part, and ofcourse im going to respond in the way i responded. i have taken lessons learned into account, anf ave tried to move on from the other people ( who were in sebere disgreeement with me) , a fresh start. pleasekeep me as unseen as possible. I really couldnt handle the stress. Also, i promised to abandon the other people i was and stick with one account, so i made this one.Gavin the Chosen 05:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have lied about who you are, that's the point. This account went to User:Voice of All(MTG) and asked him to help prove you weren't a sockpuppet, you even left a message as User:Gabrielsimon to try - very unsuccessfully - to pretend you were different people. Again, if you want a new start, that's good, and I heartily encourage that, but at least be honest. As long as you continue to be a good editor, you'll not run into trouble. --khaosworks • talk • contribs 05:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

if there was any other way to get away from people who hold vendettas i have tried it, this eemed the only remaining way.Gavin the Chosen 05:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest: 1. Don't give people an excuse to have vendettas. When people suggest you correct your behavior, do it and do it that instant. Don't keep violating 3RR, or making sockpuppets, or tampering with evidence. 2. When people are needless assholes, ignore them. Don't respond in ways that will make them madder, and will make non-assholes mad too. ~~ N (t/c) 05:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before, in order to keep editing, i promised to more or less kill the others that i made, l;eaving this one to be the sole account, and if you noticce, i havnt actually violated any rule ( except graffitti, which i was unaware ofd, and was a misunderstanding) All i wish is to be able to make a clean start, youll notice i took the RFC advise under advisement, and i even found sources for an argument. I never knowingly gave the vendetta holder a reason to hold one, and so he only way to make that user leave me in peace seemed to be to shed my face and get a new one. I do not mean to offend anyonewith dishonesty, but to maintain the cover ( sorta like the wikipedia witnessp rotection program i guess) one must have some deniabillity, i suppose.Gavin the Chosen 05:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you haven't improved in behavior (and spelling), but do you think this will change anything? You are still effectively Gabrielsimon, and so you still have an RfC and RfAr against you, and DreamGuy will still have a "vendetta" against you, and your actions have only served to severely irk all of us. Furthermore, I cannot believe you were unaware of a rule against graffiti - surely you've read Wikipedia:Vandalism? ~~ N (t/c) 05:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually , i hant. nor have i, as of this writing, though i shall , shortly any way, has this account done anything wrong other then that mistalke? methinks not ( and i have managed to find a way to leave Fnord~s everfywhere withut vandalising) i AM still who i am, as it were, yes, but without someone (who i wont name) harassing me, theres no stress, and i can be as good an editor as i can, even better then the othners, becasue i have learned from my first persona's mistakes. perhaps RFA peoplewill see that i am only tryingf to get away from harassment, and stress.Gavin the Chosen 05:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me get this clear, you've been here how many months, been pointed to the page, falsely claimed it was OK to go past 3RR if you were undoing "vandalism", accused me of vandalism, erased a direct link to the section of the Vandalism page showing that your actions were wrong, and you now say you've never read the page?!?! For crying out loud, don;'t you thikn you should have like about four five months ago when you were constantly vandalising my page and you claimed it wasn't? Or when you accused me of vandalism in the RfC? Or... GAH!... unbelievable. You are either lying now or you haven;t bothered to read the very page explaining the situation involved in a large number of your edit controversies. DreamGuy 06:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What I was posting on your talk page bnack then was not vandlism. you claimed it was in anger, aned in refusal to read it, or asnwer the simple question, butthats a long gone now. simple point of fact, aside fom the graffitti thing, which was an accident of misunderstanding, I have never vandalized, no matter what name I was usingGavin the Chosen 09:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, but A) Yes your actions were vandalism, b) you falsely accused me of vandalism multiple times as 3RR justifications and etc., which you would have known were incorrect if you'd read the policies that I gave you links to right then adn there, and c) How can you claim to know what was vandalism or not when you've admitted you haven't even read the vandalism policy? Read the policy. Admit your mistakes. For someone claiming to want a fresh start you sure insist on trying to pretend you were blameless even though by your admission you didn't even read the policy related to what was going on to know whether you were right or not. Have you read the policy yet? Go read the policy. You'll learn you were wrong. DreamGuy 12:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have even invited Slimvirgin to police my actions, you may as well if you like as my Ed poor. idont mind passive scrutiny, i mind the kind that causes thingas ( such as insultingme or baiting) andthen reports what hppenswhwn i lose patience. that is what i wanted to get away fromGavin the Chosen 05:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, could we have an example of some of this baiting? ~~ N (t/c) 06:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heres one, though i am trying to forge, DreamGuy reates a fork in articles, then does whath e pleases( vampire, vampire fiction) and then when poeople try to undo hat he did, which he did without consensus, he starts jsustifying it 's re doing bty there now being a fork, which when people remove, rfesults in him getting indignant, etc... which leads to a revert war, then when user gabrielsimon got blocked, Dreamguy saidthere was consensus, and no one was left to contest that, such duolisitous actions annoy me like nothing else. this iswhy i made me, to get away from him, and his annoyancesGavin the Chosen 06:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, now that this page has been found, the user page was just altered, in an uncalled for manner by the vendetta holding user.Gavin the Chosen 06:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE COMMENTS FROM MY TALK PAGE.

I should think you have been warned about this enough. ~~ N (t/c) 06:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

didnt do it on purpose.Gavin the Chosen 06:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then. ~~ N (t/c) 06:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all good.Gavin the Chosen 06:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should still provide some indication on your user page that you're Gabrielsimon. It's quite important. ~~ N (t/c) 06:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was to make DreamGuy leave me alone, so that i could have some time of peacefull editing, if i put that there , then he would pouince and begin harrassment again, as was done with other Idents, Though i wil put the honest reason Gavins is named Gavin.Fari comprimise?Gavin the Chosen 06:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. DreamGuy already knows who you are. As your original identity is the subject of an RfC and RfAr, it's probably a good idea to let people know you're the same guy. ~~ N (t/c) 06:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thers no end to the stress is there? All I asked was to be left in peace.Gavin the Chosen 06:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do to be left in peace is to live up to your mistakes and stop making more. You don't have a fresh start by hiding under some new name, you have a fresh start by making a fresh start. Admit you made mistakes. Read the policies when people refer them to you. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. Work with people instead of against them. If you want a fresh start, go into your RfC and RfAr and admit what you did, apologize, promise to do better, and actually do better. It's simple. You may envision me tracking you down to just harass you, but I only ever deal with you when you jump into an article I'm on or when someone catches you doing something fishy and I help sort it out. Be a good editor and I won't have anything to complain about. DreamGuy 06:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lexamine this edit history, and ignore the early graffitti block, and then tell me if i have done anything wrong.Gavin the Chosen 07:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other than lying and pretending to be a new user, removing tag off your user page proving you a sockpuppet, and currently going on the village pump to claim it's a "witch hunt" to point out that you have used three sock puppets recently and so obviously someone claiming to not be a sockpuppet cannot be assumed to be honest because you weren't? But, OK, whatever... if you start taking responsibility RIGHT NOW, forgetting about ten minutes ago, all is good as far as I am concerned. Throw yourself on the mercy on the RfAr people and let them sort it out. Fly the straight and narrow while the evidence is presented and debated. DreamGuy 07:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I never said that it was a witch hunt for me, i said it was a witc h hunt as far as Devilbat nd whoever else it was are concerned., as for re,movinmg the sock puppet tag, it gotprotected in its curent state, so i think that i have the support ofthoes in saying im not a puppet. any hoo, i nmade this new me to be able to edit in a relaxed environment, and well, id ask thaty you dont undo that by makinbg bad stuff happen.Gavin the Chosen 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to answer for everything you did as Gabrielsimon. This includes your arbitration case. You cannot get a fresh start by changing your name. Kindly cease this charade, and you'll find yourself better off. ~~ N (t/c) 07:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heres no and never was intented to be a cbharade.i just wanteds a rather good, relazing time, and so far, expept for the accidnjet with graffitti, i have it, this should, in wht i have read, also assist me, becuse ihave not done anything wrong as who i am now, hepl me with the arebcom ppl. i havnt done any warring, or anything, in fact, i even Created an article.Gavin the Chosen 07:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it, do you? You have a different name, but you're firmly established as the same person. I don't know for sure, but I doubt this will exempt you at all from your arbitration case. ~~ N (t/c) 07:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is attached to the person, not the account. Changing accounts is not a way to reset your history as an editor at Wikipedia. Everything that Gabrielsimon has done is what Gavin the Chosen has done. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

so

peoplee went all over my website, but no one topped 5to readaanything? >>Sniffle<< so unfair!Gavin the Chosen 07:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read some of your stories and looked at the pictures. And it confirms just what I thought: when you spend some time on something and take it easy you produce great stuff. Try that on Wikipedia too – spend a few minutes extra on every post. Think about the emotions it will evoke, double-check your spelling (choose a larger font if you can't see). Try to achieve your goals as easily as possible and figure out ways to do it that do not upset DreamGuy, me, and everyone else. — David Remahl 07:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Especially, respect WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Don't add statements that imply a moral judgment, or treat something unproven as fact. This is intended as only a friendly reminder. I'm sure you can be a great asset, as many articles in your area of interest are in need of a good deal of work. ~~ N (t/c) 07:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

erggg...

not really to sure how or why, but i thought me gettingto be an admin, and then helping others who have simmilar difficulties as myself ( being stubborn at hte most inopportune momnets) might be good, otherwise, i would liketo apologize for any wrongoing i might have done.Gavin the Chosen 10:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the future. Long into the future. I can tell you for sure that even if you stay on your best behavior from now on there is no chance that you will become an admin within 3 months. That is impossible. After that, yeah, it is certainly possible if you make an effort. But announcing your intentions on the talk page is not going to serve your cause. There are some people who will consider it a provocation. Peace. — David Remahl 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I promise you that I will personally nominate you when I feel there is a good chance that your nomination will succeed. How about that? :-). — David Remahl 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!... alwas wanted to be respectable... ( might get me a few frineds too)Gavin the Chosen 10:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you become an admin when you've found a lot of friends :-), not the other way around (adminship probably buys you more 'enemies' than friends). Remember, best behavior now. And no more puppets! (Just ignore the ArbCom thing. If you don't cause more problems from now on, they will find in your favour.) — David Remahl 10:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okee dokee on all counts.Gavin the Chosen 10:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to apologize for your behaviour is to make amends. Keep out of trouble, own up to your own faults when confronted with them, and play nice with other people. That's the best apology you can give me, or any other person. Good luck. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 11:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, you don't need to be an admin to help people. Being an admin only gives you the ability to delete articles and to block people. That's pretty much it. We don't have any greater authority than anyone else, just the ability to enforce it. The best way to become an admin is to prove you are worthy of that trust and power. So do the RC patrol, keep an eye out for vandalism, help broker compromises. The more people look at your edits and think, "hey, this guy could be trusted," the more likely you'll get support for an RfA. I never aspired to adminship - someone nominated me, and convinced me to accept it. Don't worry too much about it, is what I'm saying. If you're good enough, people will recognize it. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 11:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, i beleive i will attempt to take it to heart. ( hopefully without a coronory episode)Gavin the Chosen 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest Smith

its uopsetting, but pleae go to that article ,and help me make it better. Its upsettting to me, and frankly i cant make it NPOV, becasue its upsettingGavin the Chosen 11:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll try to find some information about it. Thanks for coming to me asking for help. — David Remahl 11:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the article, removed some unecessary headings and added the stub notice. If you want to start a new article, but don't have the necessary material, it would be a good idea to leave suggestions on the talk page rather than in the body of the main article. People will add headings as they add material.illWill 12:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can now. There aren't that many citeable sources apart from the Detroit News articles...But I think it is an acceptable article as it stands now. Very sad subject matter :-(. — David Remahl 12:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i know, thats hwy i couldnt do it myself, but, it is importnat, because this sort of thing can not be forgottenGavin the Chosen 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to work with you on this article. This sickens me. ~~ N (t/c) 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the accidental rollback of Ed Poor's edit

All I can say is, my mouse slipped! I've put it back the way it was. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 18:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

New identity of user:Gabrielsimon.

Looks like Gavin accidentally removed the 'new identity' tag above. I've replaced it for him. Because of his recent self improvement, I know that Gabriel/Gavin does not want to create the impression that he is changing user names to hide from his past, so I imagine it was just a slip of the mouse. - Chairboy 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move it to the top of the page, but i forgot to compete the procedure.Gavin the Chosen 15:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as for why

i thinkj its called trying for a clean, fresh start. i dislike conflict. hopefull y thats understandable, please see my talk page for more details.Gavin the Chosen 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That looks kind of like an admission of sockpuppeting. If he admitted doing so to you over email we should change the tag from suspected sock puppet to proven.DreamGuy 06:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as he admits it on his talk page now, it's a definite. DreamGuy 06:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He's not actually a sockpuppet (or one that isn't allowed) unless he's pretending to be two people at once e.g. on talk pages, or during a vote, or in order to violate 3RR. If he has simply switched user names, then he's acting within policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:37, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, then we label Gabrielsimon as a sockpuppet of the new one... right? DreamGuy 06:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, so long as he doesn't use more than one account dishonestly, there's no sockpuppetry that's against policy. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. I'll put a note on Gabrielsimon that it's no longer in use, and I'm watching the contribs to make sure he doesn't start it up again (or any other). He has promised me he will edit with only one account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if people wouldnt miomd using thier adminstrative magic, delete that account. or tag it "abandoned" or some such.Gavin the Chosen 06:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I've protected Gavin's user page because people keep putting the sock puppet tag on it. I'm in touch with him and have been monitoring things to make sure they don't go wrong again. The graffiti situation was disappointing and I've told him this is very much his last chance. He's been given a lot of slack, and I think he deserves a chance to create a new account and a fresh start, but if the old behavior returns, then I would say he's used up all his chances. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's still the matter of his RfC and RfAr... It seems to me that is he wants a "fresh start" he should be arguing for it as part of the RfAr process and not just doing it right now... tht's quite bizarre. DreamGuy 06:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

as politely as possible, I do not recall asking your opinion.Gavin the Chosen 06:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom will apply whatever sanctions there are to him regardless of the name of his user account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. DreamGuy should avoid all further communication with Gav/Gab. Leave it to Slim and me. Gavin gets a fresh start, and Slim and I will nudge him with messages and user blocks as needed.

The deal is up if (a) any admin tells Slim or me that we're not handling the matter correctly (a "no confidence" vote or veto) or if G wants out of the deal.

Kind of a grassroots parole, so we needn't bother the arbcom.

Rationale. In good faith, Gabrielsimon has freely admitted using a sockpuppet account and has responded well to Ed Poor's guidance in it. He stopped fnording. He made his first NPOV edit! This is the kind of repentance the community wants to encourage. It will set a trend. Uncle Ed 13:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind not talking to him of course, but then you need to realize he likes to post on my talk page and gets highly offended when I don't respond. And of course there's several articles I routinely check that he has a habit of being on. Some sort of ground rules?

Actually, I'd also love to take a bit of a Wikivacation, I've been spending far too many hours here, but then it's because I've been on the lookout for people like Gabe and that notorious blocked user trying to pull stunts, as a lot seem to be going on lately. If you and SlimVirgin say you're on top of that stuff I'll try to lose my Wikipedia bookmark for a while and let things run their courses for a while. And maybe email me if you see anything important on my talk page? DreamGuy 14:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I will teach Gabriel/Gavin not to annoy you. Uncle Ed 14:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. However you think you can get it to work. Best of luck. Seeya for a bit. DreamGuy 14:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I too will stay out of it. Best wishes. ~~ N (t/c) 22:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a further suggestion, Gavin, I think it would be best all around if you recuse yourself from the conversation DreamGuy & I are having about Mythology. (See my talk page for details.) -- llywrch 18:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, I guess

I see you've changed names, so welcome to this new one. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, it really appears that you're staking out a new start on here. Good luck man! - grubber 11:15, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

thank you both!Gavin the Chosen 14:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you have knowledge to offer to Wikipedia and its your choice whether you are going to use it or not. Since you seemed to have dropped the "charade" and starting additional contructive edits, I don't have any problems with you. I agree that you and DreamGuy shouldn't bother each other. Keep of the good work. Cheers!Voice of All(MTG) 20:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, and I wish you a long history of constructive edits. I echo the above suggestions to steer clear of DreamGuy. You guys have an unfortunate history and should ideally simply avoid each other, as hard as that may be. Remember, time spent fighting other users doesn't make the encyclopedia any better. I think the best thing to do is simply be the best editor you can be. Friday 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Ed

Hi! No your comments weren't out of line. I think Ed has made some mistakes that shouldn't be ignored, so I won't support him by saying they shouldn't be looked at. Still, I'm sure (and I hope) he'll stay with Wikipedia and contribute, much like you or I do. All the best. --Scimitar ^parley 21:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Community relations

Gabriel, please stick to articles you know something about, and completely avoid talking to DreamGuy. He doesn't like you, and the contact annoys him.

Just keep focused on making suggestions about the articles and making edits to the articles.

If an edit of yours is reverted, please come and tell me about it. Same if a comment of yours is ignored.

If you follow my advice, you will have a smooth time in your cool new account. But if you go back to your old ways, I will not be able to protect you. (You see how my life is hanging by a thread, right? ;-) Help me to help you! Uncle Ed 00:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

i think i can liken you to damecles, my friend.Gavin the Chosen 00:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putting suspected or proven sockpuppet tags on pages is not the sole province of admins. What matters is whether there is evidence to back it up, and you dispute that at the evidence page. Staying away from DreamGuy means staying away, and you really should stick by your promises. If he's over the line, let someone else handle it. You still seem to have a severe difficulty trusting other editors to step in. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 01:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Stop removing other users' comments. It's quite simple. I don't care how mad you get at DreamGuy. Just knock it off. android 79 03:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Block

Gavin, there has been a complaint about your removal of another editor's post from a talk page. [1] As you know, our agreement was that this wouldn't happen again. It also seems odd that you're following DreamGuy's edits when you said you didn't want to interact with him anymore. You've been blocked for 24 hours until we can work out how best to proceed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right. And no one else would be given so much latitude, but you seem to be a good fellow who wants to learn the rules. You are welcome back after the block expires. Uncle Ed 10:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

... sorry, lost my head.Gavin the Chosen 10:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you see it coming just before you lose your head? If so, just turn off the computer for a couple of hours (more than 1, less than 24). Also, don't follow DreamGuy around might help. Keep cool :-). — David Remahl 10:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i will follow your advise. May i sggest that i might get a few days for this, to remindm e that im not to a ct like such a fool?Gavin the Chosen 10:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not get a few days. You will be blocked if you don't take it easy. You will be blocked for a few days, and the ArbCom might make it longer than that. You have been given plenty of chances — now you must start behaving. Thanks. — David Remahl 11:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some people get moments of clairity, like ephiphaniues, i get tje opposite, moments of stupidity. i shiuold try hardewrto learn to see them coming0, btw, not an excyusem, just an ovbservation, i know damned well i know i did d someting stupid..Gavin the Chosen 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Please re read my proposal it is, in fact, a proposal to block me for 48 - 75 hoursGavin the Chosen 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can do that.. (Strictly speaking, it is not policy to enforce wikivacations, but I will ignore all rules if you want to.) Just say the word and I'll block you for a while. — David Remahl 11:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its good tha im bvlocked for now, i have writing contracts to perform and jobinterviews to prep for. wooo... lolGavin the Chosen 15:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off

I wanted to let you know that I will discontinue editing for this site, and that you were a good friend since I have been here. D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope you wont let people of lower quality win.Gavin the Chosen 00:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uhh

i accidentally got autoblacked... was trying to figurre out how long i had lefet and i accidentally hit me a red link... (red face)Gavin the Chosen 00:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in your sincerity. Below is the suspension info you need. Uncle Ed 14:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

16:07, August 11, 2005 Chmod007 blocked "User:Gavin the Chosen" with an expiry time of 48 hours (self-imposed)
16:07, August 11, 2005, Chmod007 blocked Gavin the Chosen (expires 16:07, August 13, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (self-imposed)

You can check Special:Ipblocklist to see if you're still blocked. Note that all times are UTC, so if you're not sure of the time zone conversion, just leave yourself a note here and you'll see the current server time. Uncle Ed 14:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hint: You can edit again one day and 2 hours from now. Uncle Ed 14:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

aboput vandals

Thanks, frelysp[rang! ( for removing), also, cantthe vandal a t least show me more then one picture? come on!Gavin the Chosen 00:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! FreplySpang (talk) 10:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

a suggestion for the developers, please pass this on

what if when blocked, you actualyl CANT edit anything ,aside from your talk page? then it would be as if everythings protecte, becasue instead of Edit this p[age, youd see View Source" . what do you think?Gavin the Chosen 09:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serial probation

Fred Bauder (talk · contribs), an arbitrator, left this on User talk:Gabrielsimon:

Please look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop#Serial_probation and see if you think you can live with it. I am assuming you are very young and can rapidly learn to meet Wikipedia's expectations. Fred Bauder 16:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

~~ N (t/c) 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of friendly (I hope) advice. It's entirely possible that you'll be blocked for some period of time, whether or not you want to be. I believe one of the functions of the ArbCom is to do such things when they feel the circumstances warrant it. It's possible that you were being offered a deal better than one that may come later. I would suggest you consider it more before turning it down. Friday (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I don't think you're helping your case here. You're brushing off continuing blockable behavior by calling it a "misunderstanding", and you're asserting that you will improve your behavior in the future. You've already had lots of time to learn to follow the rules here. Getting blocked (however temporarily) is a sign you've made a major mistake. Many editors manage to edit here for years and never get blocked, and you've been blocked probably 10 times or so in a few months. You had many chances to accept lesser sanctions, which have fallen apart due to continued "misunderstandings". Now, the Arbitration Committee gets to decide what happens to you.

I think you could help your case tremendously by accepting responsibility for your rulebreaking. If you agreed to what they're suggesting, people would see it as a sign of good will. You could spend the duration of the time by reading policies and guidelines, and making sure you'll fully prepared to be a good Wikicitizen when you return to editing. You could even work on articles in your own sandbox, and merge the content in after the block expires. Wouldn't you find it less displeasing to agree to the ArbCom suggestion voluntarily, rather than waiting for something to be imposed on you against your will? Friday (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i have posted an explainaion of why i call it a misunderstanding, and i would porefer to negociate with the arbitrators.Gavin the Chosen 19:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I still urge you to admit wrongdoing, as it may help you negotiate. So far you're talking about it on the talk page. Nothing wrong with that, but I believe they're waiting for an official response from you in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop#Proposed remedies, under "Comment by parties". I think you should think carefully about how you respond. Ask yourself, what penalties WOULD you be willing to accept? I think some kind of agreement not to edit articles for some period of time would help you. Maybe you could even try to work out some deal where you were allowed to edit article talk pages, but not the articles themselves. Just a suggestion. Friday (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit any section of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Workshop under comments by parties. Fred Bauder 00:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Block

Gavin, you've been blocked for 24 hours for disruption because of this edit, [2], which is a violation of the agreement that you would stop deleting other users' posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hes not supposed to talk to or about me any more, i thought it was warrented.Gavin the Chosen 06:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's never warranted to break an agreement. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... i honestly thought the circumstances were extenuating, sorry.Gavin the Chosen 07:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the best trick to deciding whether to make an edit or not: if you're not sure, choose not to make the edit and you can trust that an other editor will come along and do it for you if it's warranted. This goes for removing comments, responding to people, correcting someone's addition to an article, removal of vandalism, reverting a bad edit... everything. Always remember that there's a literal army of people editing Wikipedia and, if something needs doing, someone will come along and do it if you don't. — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I've seen some astounding behavior on your part in the past, and I've seen you say you thought it was OK for a variety of bizarre and unbelievable reasons. As far as I recall, no one has ever agreed with the reasons you've given, and no one's going to agree with this one, either. You need to face a simple fact: you do not have good judgement on what behavior is appropriate. This simple fact is exactly what got you into this mess. You are only making things worse for yourself. Users with patterns of disruptive behavior far shorter than yours have been permanently banned. Next time you think there's a good reason for you to break a rule or an agreement you've made, stop. Don't do it. The things that seem like justifications to you, don't seem at all that way to others. Friday (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strange

its been 24 hrs, but im still blocked... wierd...Gavin the Chosen 06:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sometimes happens that blocks don't automaticaly expire when they're supposed to—some bug in the software, apparently. If you think that's the case, email someone (like SlimVirgin?) and ask them to check on the status of your block. — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Gabriel, you violated 3RR at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy and have been temporarily blocked from editing. The times of your reverts, in case you want to check them, were 08:11, 08:18, 08:22, and 08:32, August 15. Although you did delete your edit at 08:34, you didn't restore DreamGuy's edit, and so it remains a 3RR violation. For future reference, article RfCs must be described in neutral terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He was removing my comments which i had placd as neutrally as possible, while stillterlling what the eact nature of the dispute was, he claimed peronal attacks, which i had not made any of, it is against policey to remove other editors coments, form a page, inculding project pages, all i was doing in this cae was removing vansaliscioous blanking of what could incrimminate the user who wqas removing it, i firmly beleive your being too strict with me in this case ( so far i have triedto type this four times) please unblock me.Gavin the Chosen 08:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were not neutral, and in any event, 3RR does not depend on the nature of the content, unless it's simple vandalism. You were also reverting, and may have violated 3RR, at Vampire, and you had started a revert war at Otherkin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

revert wqar claims

there was no revert war, i read his summ,ary, changed it and made my argument, then i leistend to his argument and let it be, HOW IS THAT A WAR VASHTI??????? you poeple have to stop assuming the wrost about me.Gavin the Chosen 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, the people you're dealing with are not assuming the worst. If folks were assuming the worst about you, you would have already been banned permanently, long ago. Instead, people are assuming that you mean well, and you're getting lenient treatment. A quick glance through your edit history shows an edit war not long ago. You must learn to stop reverting, even if you know you're on the "right" side. Friday (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the message I left on my talk page this morning:

Your talk page is protected, so I'm leaving this here. You reverted the same change twice, making a total of four reverts on the one page within something like an hour. That's a revert war, in my book. I mentioned it to Slimvirgin in the hope that she might be able to have a word with you before you hit 3RR, but I see you've already been blocked for something else. Vashti 09:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vashti 17:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

it seemed more of a converastion to me, in edit summaries. but then, anything i seem to percieve seems to be wrong lately...

im beginning to wonder why im even here.Gavin the Chosen 19:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you can contribute to the WP, you've done it before. If I might suggest something to try... based on the theory that there are a LOT of people editing, and considering some of the recent stuff that's happened, might I suggest that you consciously decide not to revert ANYTHING, at least for a while? If someone vandalizes something you watch, assume that someone else will fix it quickly, and if they don't, or you think it's too obscur for an easy catch, just post something about it in the discussion page and let someone else do the dirty work. This way, you can remain clear of any accusations and go back to doing what you do best, contributing content. Best regards, and I sincerely hope that you can find a role here. - Chairboy 20:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're called edit summaries because they're for summarising the edit just made. Using them for a conversation is abusing them. That's what the Talk page is for. Reverting back and forth in order to have a conversation with one other editor makes it impossible for everyone else to work on an article. This is the very definition of "disruptive editing". The fact that your disruptive behaviour has been making the project harder for other editors is the reason you're up for Arbitration. Every time you do something, think twice and three times about it, asking yourself, "Is this disrupting other people's work?" If the answer is "yes" or even "maybe", for the sake of the project, don't do it! You have to stop being disruptive. — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire

The piece I wrote about vampires was purely about vampires in movies. It fitted quite well on the vampire fiction page as another user stated. The vampire legend is quite different.--Kim Nevelsteen 12:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the part about "modern real vampires" seems to be a separate subculture then " the vamprie subculture" and ifthats the case, then wouldnt it belong in the main page?Gavin the Chosen 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

people thinking they need blood to survive is also a subculture. The top heading is "the vampire subculture, which fits perfectly. Also the statement about the overlapping with the dress code people makes the subsection a fitting choice. It clear doesn't relate to other sections. --Kim Nevelsteen 12:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ill accept that.Gavin the Chosen 12:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the two sections that I removed and wanted to move to vampire lifestyles are EXACT regurgitations of what is already stated there. If there is some that is missing from lifestyles, maybe you can add it there. sorry about the removal of your work.--Kim Nevelsteen 13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppetry

Are you 69.195.126.19 (talk · contribs)? ~~ N (t/c) 16:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC) sorry to tell you, but no. when that last edit happend i was searching for stuff to help proove my point about vamps blod and symboism.Gavin the Chosen 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You signed one of the edits using that IP as "gabrielSimon": [3] ~~ N (t/c) 16:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ips cover thrree block areras in this system that rogers has. back before i was using an account, i was anon, that doenst mean otherp eople might also be. how else do youyhink i get autoblocked when i didnt do anthing?Gavin the Chosen 16:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, that edit just reverted one of the edits (at Otherkin) that you are currently on 3RR report for. I suspect that this is going to be extremely serious for you.

At some point you really need to let this thing with DreamGuy go, and stop blaming all your problems on him setting you up. The admins aren't stupid, and do look at what you've done. You are in the wrong as much as he is. You are being just as bad as he is. Your problems here are your own fault, and not his.

My heartfelt advice to you is that you should let the people who want to help you get on with it, and stop sabotaging them every time you come back from a ban. You will only be allowed to get blocked each day so many times. Vashti 16:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yaknow, Vashti, it would go better if you dropped the "just as bad as he is" in referring to me. I am not up for RfC nor undergoing arbitration. I do not break policies, I don't use sockpuppets, I do my best to remain civil with the guy even when he's outright swearing at me. There's no comparison here at all between what I do and what Gabriel does. Phrasing things in this way just helps him justify his persecution complex to himself.

By the way, yes, I agreed not to "talk" to Gabriel, but some people have started acting as if it were some sort of discipline I am on, and that's not it at all. I voluntarily agreed to do so. I was trying to help. It didn't help. I give up trying to be extra generous when it just has people walking over me. Gabriel is without a doubt the one breaking the rules here, I was just doing what was necessary to get rid of his bad edits and document what he was doing, and I resent the bad faith involved in claiming that I am at all similar. DreamGuy 18:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Gabriel, I have suspended your Wikipedia account for 48 hours. Please review the policy above, and remember our agreement about not "talking to" DreamGuy.

through shifting claims of differnet probvlems which are all lies, he tries again to remove myworthwhile contributions, hence, reinsertion

well thats whats bes been doing the entire time, i try to make adecent, constructive additopn to a page, and he destroys it beasue it doesnt suit his version of reality.Gavin the Chosen 17:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

arb com message

first, lets say that im stressed, second, lets say that i will take this one month thing,becuase then at least this whole mess will be over and done with.Gavin the Chosen 17:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you changed your mind on this? I went on vacation and found that you'd not only continued editing, you'd gotten yourself blocked at least once after getting off the block you were on when you agreed to the one month. :-( Friday (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You've been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR at Otherkin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your job

Congratulations on the new job, Gabriel. I'm happy for you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

thank you VERY much. peace be with you ( and noticec something, i actually DDINT do anything wrong for, what, three days now? A NEW RECORD perhaps! lolGavin the Chosen 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with you, this edit from yesterday shows what appears to be you trying to hide the connection between your old account and your new account. I reverted it, and if you really want to demonstrate good faith, I suggest that you not do it again. This is the second time that I've personally seen you try to cover those tracks, and I believe that it puts your commitment to being 'on-the-level' to task. BTW, congrats on the new job. - Chairboy 20:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the notice is on the user page, so itsnot like im hiding, i just dont want DreamGuys l9oud version to be there.Gavin the Chosen 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Job and RfAr on DreamGuy

Congratulations there on the new job and sticking with Wikipedia through thick and thin. Here's a barnstar for that:

Now about what you had posted on my talk page. Gavin/Gabriel, to be honest, I am really tired of these arguments with DreamGuy, and sitting back when high emotions are tense. I have decided to remain neutral this time, and I hope that doesn't upset you. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copuld have used your help is all. if you change your mind, feel free to add dammningevidance.Gavin the Chosen 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My user page vandalism

Thanks for reverting! ~~ N (t/c) 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Remember, just because the 3RR can block you for more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, this does NOT mean you are "entitled" to 3 reverts every day. If you continue revert warring, but stop just short of making 4 reverts, you're still violating the spirit of the 3RR. I heartily recommend the one revert rule to all editors, most especially those who've already had difficulties avoiding revert warring. Friday (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember to discuss major changes to an article on its talk page before you make them. For instance, removing an entire section from Therianthropy is a major change that must be discussed. I know it's difficult to achieve agreement among people with very different perspectives, but it's one of the foundations of Wikipedia. Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 15:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I do not beleiver that THerianthropy has anything to do with clinical lycanthropy, simply bechaasue CL is a medical condition, andTherianthropy is more of a spiritual beleief, most ofthe time.Gavin the Chosen 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your recent reverts on Therianthropy and Clinical lycanthropy are quite bad. Not only did you insert several mispellings, you accused another editor of bad faith in your edit summary. I think the justification for removing your typos is quite obvious. As pointed out above, major changes (like removing a section) should be discussed on talk pages. I just got an edit conflict on this, but I see from your most recent post that you once again appear to believe your opinion is the only one that counts. Have you forgotten that is not how Wikipedia works? Friday (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My accusation of bad faith stems from yesterday, when i was reverted jovially, seemingly for the sake of reversionm, by said other editor.Gavin the Chosen 16:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're continuing to revert. You're editing by brute force here. And you're not assuming good faith in your edit summaries. What happened to your agreement to not revert anymore? Friday (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some times i forget . but still, the argument on the talk page stands.Gavin the Chosen 17:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say, on the lycanthropy thing.. You've already explained your position, and most other editors aren't agreeing. It's silly to just revert back and say "please leave it this way". We don't accept or reject content based on the author asking nicely. We accept or reject content based on trying to improve the articles. So far most people think it's useful to the article to have the links there. Gah, now you're removing large chunks of the article again! Haven't people asked you several times to discuss these things on the talk page instead of just doing it? Friday (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Psst. Historically, you've not been very good at judging what's neutral or not. If you get in a disagreement with other editors, listen to what they say, and consider believing it. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them non-neutral. Friday (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

check his recent edit history, and youll find what hes doing isnt nuetral, while im fine with disagreements, im not fine with iunsulting labels being inserted, or many of the other rudenesses he puts forth.Gavin the Chosen 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting too emotionally involved. I saw what you keep referring to as insulting, and I don't see that it was an insult. You're now close to violating (if not already) 3RR on his talk page. Do you think this is helping make the encyclopedia better? Friday (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hes been rude and thats unacceptable, i only wish an apology.Gavin the Chosen 21:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't getting one, so sorry. I did, however, waive 3rr on my talk page, if I am allowed to do so. Hipocrite 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, he referred to you as a non-professional. This is not an insult. And, I'd be extremely shocked to find you were a professional psychologist, so it's not untrue either. Please, stop being so easily offended here. He wasn't rude. Friday (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, actually, looking back, what I did was a little rude. Not even remotely at the level of "rude," but I do apologize for the following: Labeling it a "bad answer" (though it was a bad answer), labeling it an "unsourced answer from a non-professional" AFTER I put the 'PS: only professionals please' bit in the page - it made it seem to the casual observer that I was denigrating you. I'm not in the least pleased that you decided to butt in and scare any professional who might have wanted to give me info away by showing them an inhospitable environment. Hipocrite 21:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR again

Gabriel, you appear to have violated 3RR at Therianthropy. You reverted at 08:36, 16:36, and 17:22 on Aug 23, then at 03:51 and 04:43 on Aug 24, which is within 24 hours. I'm not going to block you this time because you're starting your new job tomorrow, so this is a good-luck gift from me, okay? But you have to stop reverting there now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

i am truely sorry for that, and i appreciate the gesture. but user hipocrite refuses to discuss and refverts without discussion, plus if you look upon his talk page he seems to have called me a terrorist. this confuses me. either way, thanks muchly for the gift and the wishes.Gavin the Chosen 04:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making excuses. Policy doesn't bend because you think there are extenuating circumstances—that's why it's policy. You've already been told that. — Saxifrage | ☎ 05:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

would you react well if you were called a terrorist? or to having people REAPEATEDLY, over the course of days, revert your every hange to articles, without any sort of discussion?Gavin the Chosen 05:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would react well, which is the whole point of following the policies that Wikipedia has in place. They are there to ensure that people know that such reactions are detrimental to the project, and to enforce standards of conduct to make the project run smoothly. Why is that so unacceptable to you? Follow policy, plain and simple, and you can't go wrong. — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

WP:COOL. Delete my comments when they're too tough to get your mind around? Hipocrite 05:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nope, just when they get especially annoying.Gavin the Chosen 05:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he call you a terrorist? He just said "Ban Gavin Now". ~~ N (t/c) 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipocrite/Archive1#see Gavin the Chosen 15:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to not be harassed...

You ought to try not dishing it out yourself. This comment seems to serve no purpose but antagonizing someone you already don't get on with. You keep complaining that he won't leave you alone, but you're not leaving him alone either. This squabbling accomplishes nothing useful. Friday (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

its simple logic, if someoenes alkways being bothered by EVERYONE, then the problem isnt with anyone but hte one percieving the boither. but yes, i see your point.Gavin the Chosen 17:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gabriel. You are creating a record in bans, and it's because you are more controversial than almost every editor. Your continuous bans are evidence that you are doing something wrong, not that you are being picked on. - grubber 07:12, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Gabe, I have debated for several days whether to write to you. I have stayed in the background and watched your actions and well as those of others. You are bright and capable of being an asset to WIKI. However, you seem to have two flaws; 1) a personal opinion that is valued more highly than those of others (this is manifiested by an unwillingess to listen or to ask questions to gain clarification) and 2) you make statements as if they are fact when in reality they are untrue.

You need to take some time out and just look at the full spectrum of your experience on WIKI. You seek to blame everyone else but yourself. Interestingly, I don't believe there has been anyone, ever, in the entire history of WIKI, that has been given so much leeway, provided so much patience, counsel, and instruction. And yet, you have yet to stop, take advantage of their counsel and change your ways. You are not stupid; quit acting like it so often. What you are doing obviously does not work; why do you keep doing it? Take a breather, reflect on the counsel you have constantly and consistenly received from WIKI's finest and return with a desire to build a better WIKI...and that has nothing to do with your personal opionion, but rather verifiable facts. Storm Rider 14:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our agreement

Hi Gabriel, I hope your first day at your new job went well. As you may have noticed, I took a bit of heat today for not having blocked you yesterday for the 3RR violations, and several editors have told me they feel I was wrong to do that. I've told them that yesterday was an exception, and so I'm writing to clarify that to you, and to reaffirm the terms of our agreement. These are that each violation of 3RR will attract a 24-hour block (not each report, but each violation). Personal attacks, sockpuppetry, graffiti, removing other people's posts from talk or project pages, and general disruption will also attract automatic blocks, but they may be longer than 24 hours. There can't be any exceptions in future.

I'm sorry to write to you like this, and I hope you understand the need for it. I encourage you to adopt a no-personal-attacks policy, regardless of the provocation, and to limit yourself to one revert per article per day. Give the agreement another try, and let's see whether we can make things work. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to a one revert per article per day limit. You've already exceeded that at Therianthropy. Please, find a way to edit other than by brute force. Friday (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr

Gavin please don't argue on the rfAr page. I've reverted your latest addition (I probably should have reverted a lot more to be honest) The point of the page is for you to present evidence. Adding your opinion is not helpful. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

It just seemed a little odd to remove it. Do the other editors on the page want it to be removed too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

according to the texts, he siad something akin to " i am the son of god" etc and the texts also claim that he was sent by god as " gods only begotten son" since you cant send yoyrself, and that he was gods son, it seems reasonable to delete it.Gavin the Chosen 00:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was called "God incarnate." But I think it's important to check with the other editors on the page before you revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty clear revert violation here. I count 7 (SEVEN) times that Gavin has reverted this Jesus issue on a single page of history. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] - This is crazy. - CHAIRBOY 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements

When another editor disagrees with you on article content, it does not indicate that they are being mean to you. Editing here is by consensus. When other editors think your edits made the article worse instead of better, they will frequently undo them. This is nothing personal. And, you should not simply revert the changes back, as has been explained to you many times. Friday (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

people do it to me out of princciple at times. thats why some times i revert things that were reverted.Gavin the Chosen 00:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But SlimVirgin doesn't do that. Therefore she must have had a different reason. I expect she reverted you because she thought your deletion didn't in fact improve the article. Don't you think that may have been her reason? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its just INCREIBLY annoying that no matter what subject i go to, people just revert my edits WITHOUT discxussion of any kind no matter how much i try.Gavin the Chosen 00:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

If you keep on reverting the reversions, then others are more likely to revert you again, and on it goes, an endless spiral of action/reaction. It would be good if you could step out of it and start discussing your objections on talk pages. Even if others are reverting, you could lead by example. It means you won't always get your own way, but that's life as a Wikipedian. I can offhand think of dozens of articles that contain what I see as errors (or something not quite right anyway), or what I see as POV, but I've argued my case and have lost, and so I have to accept the contents as they are. That's the way it goes here, for all of us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I havnt " gotten my way" in months.its why reverting me without attempting to ask why i did sometning, at least, is really reallly reallly annoying.Gavin the Chosen 00:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin why did you add back in a unsourced paragraph onto the Bush article? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hbecause i wish to encourage the adder to place sources, and besides, having some anti bush stff would balalnce the article.Gavin the Chosen 00:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC) OK if that's what you wanted to do consider other measures you could have taken. You could have left a note on the persons user page asking them to add sources. Or you could have copied the paragraph to the talk page and asked their. or you could have searched for sources yourself. There is no need to revert war. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Gavin, you have violated 3RR at List of people who have said they are a god and have been temporarily blocked from editing. You're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page if you feel the block is unfair or mistaken. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page about it, and then did it, i beleived it to be only the third time. If people would STOP reverting every damned thing i ever do on this site, this sort of stupid thing wouldnt halpppen.Gavin the Chosen 00:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was definately 4 times. The block is fair. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't happening because of other people, Gavin, but because of your actions, and your own actions are the only ones you can control. You removed the reference to Jesus on August 22. You removed it again (reverted) on August 26 at 23:55, 00:02, 00:15, and 00:44. It's disappointing that you continued to revert (regardless of the number of times) while a number of people were asking you to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

This is just a warning that I've noticed you've reverted three times on George W. Bush. Really, such a thing needs to be cited - you can't just say "this was probably planted people" without giving any evidence whatsoever. Any further revert on that article will result in a temporary block. --Golbez 01:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

really now, would you put it past opportunistic polititians?Gavin the Chosen 01:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a tremendously awesome argument. You really should work for Britannica or something, you clearly know exactly what fact is. --Golbez 03:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

please leave the sarcasm on othr peoples pages. im only saying that its not unlikly, so why not see if soures can be found.Gavin the Chosen 04:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the editor to supply sources - not for us to clean up after his mess. And since you readded it, it is now YOUR responsibility to supply the sources. Get to it. --Golbez 09:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Who's preventing sources from being found?? If they can be found, this content can always be re-inserted. The technique of moving such controversial bits to the talk page while they're being hashed out works quite well in such situations. Friday (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no one ever sesms to do that, instead people tend to just delete... mpngo, and many others among them.Gavin the Chosen 05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removing the questionable content until a source can be found is entirely appropriate. Friday (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one expected to move it to the talk page, with a source. ~~ N (t/c) 15:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy added a comment here which Gavin deleted. Not sure what the state of such things is, but I usually note that others will put the comment back in that situation. I'm not going to act preemptively, but should that comment be reinstated? Mistercow 14:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block recommendation

I was sorry to have suggested that you be blocked, but I felt (and still feel) it was the best thing to do. I know you mean well, but your edits have been disruptive. You really, really need to rethink your approach. I hope you're not offended by this; it's meant as friendly advice. Friday (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, if EVERY damned thing i ever do gets reverted, why would you think i start getting more agressivbe? becuase its vdry, very very annpoying for smeone to repeatedly basaically be told t go away, in actiions, while usets who drive others away on purpoe keep roaming unchecked.Gavin the Chosen 01:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin you are blaiming everyone but yourself. But it's your choice to edit war. No one is forcing to revert. Think about how you could have avioded this block. Is there anything you could have done differently? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If every single thing i do is reverted without discussion ( for the most part) hoiw else am i supposed to get nything done around herE?Gavin the Chosen 01:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you tell me. How could you have handled things differently? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive already tried discussing things on many pages. peoiple either ignore, or just dont seem open minded about anything.Gavin the Chosen 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, please remember that our articles here need verifiability. This means that being "open-minded" (or closed-minded) isn't relevant. You want the article to reflect (your version of) the "Truth". Wikipedia can't be about Truth, so it must be about Verifiability. This is why we use sources. Friday (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I never saw any discussion on this page until after a number of reverts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there was an attempt at the misnamed talk page Talk:Editing List of people who have said they are a god which has since been deleted. FreplySpang (talk) 01:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes but that was after 3 reverts today and just before the 4th one. Gavin Do you think reverting three times before talking on the talk page was the best thing to do? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he posted to the talk page (and in fact the wrong page) at 00:44 and reverted for the fourth time at 00:44. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dubya

Gavin, please don't get in an edit war on George W. Bush. The content you are trying to add doesn't seem to be NPOV. Rather than reverting to your content, please raise a discussion on the talk page if you want to discuss the matter further. Regards, JDoorjam 01:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

yeshua

Gavin, if you delete Jesus again from List of people who have said that they are gods, I'm going to conclude that you're being disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Theresa's question

Gavin, Theresa asked you an important question recently, which I didn't see the answer to. She asked whether you felt there was anything you could have done differently the last time you were blocked for 3RR. I think the same question applies to the revert of your Jesus edit today. Do you feel there is anything you could do differently to avoid being reverted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I made the edit, then ent to modify the talk page. the talk page wouldnt allow me to edit, nor woild any other page for about an hour ( i am just estimating) so it took em a while.Gavin the Chosen 06:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

You've been blocked for 48 hours for disruption because you again removed Jesus from List of people who have said that they are gods. As always, you're welcome to e-mail me if you feel the block is mistaken or unfair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

For the last time. ITS NOT disruptive to use EXACT wording. no one challenged what i said on the talk page, so as i said, mrs Doest-bother-to-Read-Edit-summaries, It seemed appropriate, i even gave it a few hours to sit and wait for a challenge. stop blocking me for matters of opinion.Gavin the Chosen 06:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to come here and tell you that is this is the second time in a row you've used edit summaries to basically lie to try to delay a revert. Saying something on talk and then making the change before anyone contests it does not constitute consensus. Dmcdevit·t 06:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's customary to explain such things ahead of time, and wait for consensus. You knew the removal was controversial, having already been reverted a handful of times, did you not? Friday (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a good amount of time. no one said anything. i assumed that meant no one had a problem with it. and NO, i didnt lie. accusations like that should not be made.Gavin the Chosen 06:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You waited a couple of hours, certainly not enough, surely some of the people who watch there are sleeping or working or whatever right now. And you only posted after you'd already been reverted the first time (so, obviously someone disagreed with you). And you've now unsuccessfully removed Jesus like 8 or 9 times, how can you possibly say no one had a problem with it? I'm usually very patient, but I'm beyond good faith at this point. Dmcdevit·t 06:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

oh, sure, YOUR patient. iom the one who tries very hard to get things done around here, and doesnt EVER seem to be even remotely apprecaited for my attempts. all i ever fucking get is reverts without even so much as an attempt at discussion, my own attmpts at discussion go unanswered more often then not, so why the hell am i even here? because im TREYING to do things to help people, but still all i ever get is reverts without discussion and blocks ... Joy!Gavin the Chosen 06:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are being too impatient, Gabriel, in both namespace edits/reverts and temperment. A few hours is not good enough, try a couple of days — move on to something else while you await a response. If none is forthcoming by then, then you can revert with the moral highground of having reverted less than once every 24 hours per any given article. The evidence against you is simply so overwhelming, I don't really see a way that the Committee will rule in a way you'd find favourable (or at least minimally sufficient) unless you immediately undertake a radical change: treading much more lightly than the average user. I can't emphasize your need to realize this strongly enough. El_C 08:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

On getting a job and clearing up your eye infection. What browser do you use? Rich Farmbrough 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i use mozilla suite... why? and thanks!Gavin the Chosen 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a plug in spell checker available on sourceforge which is very useful. Rich Farmbrough 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Thanks for your note. The reason Ed didn't get reverted (though my guess is that Jesus will be re-added at some point) is that he left a note carefully explaining his reasoning on talk, and because he's a respected editor who doesn't revert much. If you would leave more reasons on talk and revert less, you'd be reverted less often too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

this time i left a rather long treatise ( for me anyway) on the talk page, then madethe change. i beleie i made some good points too.Gavin the Chosen 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've made some excellent points on the talk page. Keep it up. Ask them for a source showing he claimed to be a god. According to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, they have to supply a credible source if you ask for one. Remember not to revert again because you'll have violated 3RR if you do. Now is the time for self-control. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You withdrew and left me to fight your battle. ;-D Anyway, Android pointed out that the intro says, from memory, "people whose culture assumed they were gods," so Jesus can be included without a source in that case. The title isn't perfect, but the intro accurately reflects the contents. You did well to keep the discussion going without more reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

didnt mean to diapear, i watied like ten minues for a reply and then left the site for a while... had stuff to do. but if the articvles title is to be what the article contains, then since we can not fid anything saying he said he was a god, then it shouldnt be in there.Gavin the Chosen 15:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, I'm again disappointed in your edit warring. Yes, you made an attempt to explain yourself on the talk page, and that's good, but accompanying it by edit warring is completely inappropriate. You do realize that this would likely be a blockable offense under the terms that the ArbCom has (nearly) settled on, don't you? I think you should start practicing now, to get accustomed to it. Friday (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and every other thing i see you saying is " block him block him" so i ask you thism, wouldy ou shut up about that?> its getting tiresome.Gavin the Chosen 15:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd assume good faith on my part. I do believe that a short block, applied early, is preferable to giving you enough rope to hang yourself. Friday (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how am i to asasume good faith when everything points to you seeming to enjoy going " please block him" all the damned time? its really aggravating... Gavin the Chosen 15:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, the other important point (apart from discussing on talk pages, and not edit warring) is that, when an argument goes firmly against you, even if you're right, it's best to walk away. There's a clear consensus on the page to include Jesus, so the discussion should probably stop now, or it begins to look like disruption. It's also best not to ask people to shut up. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not one of the ones calling for your head. On the contrary, I've tried to defend you on numerous occasions. I'm sorry you're offended by my suggesting you be blocked, but again, I'd rather see you blocked briefly than for a year or worse.

Anyway, we may just need to agree to disagree on that. As per Jesus, have you read what I posted there? Here it is again, I hope it helps you see why I believe J should be included:

A couple things. 1) Nothing in the entire Bible is as verifiable as last week's Geraldo Rivera interview; there are no living witnessess. We go with the best we have. 2) Assuming the bible is OK to use as a source here, I direct you to John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". The subsequent verses make it very clear that the Jews hearing him at the time took this to mean Jesus was claiming to be God. I don't see where there's much room for disagreement. Most modern Christians believe he claimed to be God; the Jews at the time (according to the Bible) assumed the same thing. We can argue all day long about whether he really meant that, but our own speculation is inadmissable. The Jesus section mentions that there may be disagreement; that's fine. Removing him outright is inappropriate. Friday (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 - john whatever you quoted and the folowing are talking aboutthier purpose being one. 2 - what people beleive of someone ifs VERY different from what the personSAID.Gavin the Chosen 15:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation. Others have a different one. Do you agree that, according to the Bible, the Jews listening at the time took it as a (completely blasphemous) claim to be God? Also, as I've said, the Bible, while far from historical canon, is one of our few sources to use for Jesus. Can you agree that it's at least arguable that Jesus claimed to be God, and that many, many people believe he did? Remember, we're not after Truth, we're after verifiability. Friday (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Just so you know, I've told Slim that I feel you should be blocked for this. This is the same exact revert you were blocked for a couple days ago. She is of course free to accept or disregard my opinion; I'm just one editor. Don't take offense, but I'd rather see you blocked here and there for short periods of time than continue warring and end up with a harsher sentence. Friday (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving your dispute on Jesus

Gavin,

I'm going to be bold here and try to offer you some advice on the dispute you're having regarding whether Jesus should be included on the list of people who claimed to be God or a god. I'm sorry to make this so long, but I have a number of points to cover, and want to make sure I hit them all. First, I'm glad to see that you are engaging in discussion on the talk page and stopping short of 3RR violations. That's progress, and it deserves to be congratulated. So, thank you for making that effort.

Now, that being said, we still have a big problem: there is a full-fledged edit war on the subject of Jesus. From WP:EW: "Some people consider that an edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. Others subscribe to a much broader definition, encompassing any situation in which two or more authors repeatedly edit an article extensively."

Even if all parties are confining themselves to fewer than three reverts in a 24 hour period, this is not the way to go. Let me quote three sentences from WP:3RR:

It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

Even if you're only making one revert a day, that's still trying to get your way by brute force. As the Edit War page puts it: "'Reversion wars' between two competing individuals are against Wikipedia's spirit, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule."

Now, I know, it takes two to tango...or to edit war. You aren't the only one reverting the page and insisting on having your way. But wouldn't you agree the brute-force method is going nowhere? If we are going to come to some sort of acceptable solution, someone is going to have to take the high road and try to work out an alternative method of resolving this dispute. Why not you? I think that would make a big impression on a lot of people, myself included.

What would the high road look like? I'll pull a suggestion out of WP:EW:

Instead of performing a straight revert, look for ways to compromise, or alternative ways of saying the same thing—while such edits take more time and thought than another unthinking revert, they are far more likely to result in a mutually satisfactory article.

What this means is to use the talk page in a different way: instead of trying to win by listing all the ways your argument is superior to the other side's, you try to find a way to compromise by seeking common ground, presenting all sides of the dispute, and developing consensus language that is agreeable to both sides.

That, by the way, is what consensus is supposed to be: it is not meant to be a democratic process where the side that gets the most votes gets everything and the other side gets nothing. Consensus means everyone is supposed to be satisfied: you and the people who disagree with you.

Now, how would you go about building consensus on this dispute? Maybe we start by suggesting some things that everyone could agree to:

No primary documents survive from the actual time of Jesus' lifetime, so there is dispute regarding the actual words he said. Opinions range from Biblical literalists to certain modern scholars who doubt many of the sayings attributed to Jesus.

The documents known as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John represent some of the earliest and most authoritative accounts purporting to describe the life and teachings of Jesus, and so are commonly referred to when investigating what the historical figure of Jesus might have said and done. Certain other documents, such as the Epistles of Paul, may have been written before the Gospels, but do not generally puport to give an account of the life of Jesus on Earth.

Of the gospels, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not generally contain statements that identify Jesus directly as God. He is described as "Messiah," "Son of God," "Son of Man," and in other terms. The Gospel of John includes statements ascribed to Jesus in which he says "I and my father are one." The orthodox Christian understanding of this statement is that Jesus (the son) and God (the father) are literally one and inseperable, that Jesus is God. Others have interpreted this statement to mean that Jesus and God are "one" in terms of purpose, intent or will, in the sense of "we are of one mind."

Now, have I said anything in those statements that you disagree with--that you think is factually wrong? If so, maybe we can work on revising them. If not, let's move on to consider how we might move forward. Here is the text that has inspired the revert war:

The most popular Christian views of Jesus hold that in the Canonical Gospels he said he was God Incarnate, who took on human nature and human flesh and is the second person of the Holy Trinity. One commonly cited statement attributed to Jesus on his godhood is John 14:10 - "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(KJB)" Other similar religious perspectives on Jesus include the Bahá'í Faith, who consider Jesus to be a manifestation of God, and some Hindus, who equate Jesus with an avatar - an incarnation of God on earth - along with Rama and Krishna. Others believe that Jesus' words have been misinterpreted - that he never actually said he was a god - and still others that the historicity of Jesus is doubtful - that he never existed.

Orthodox Christianity considers language in John to mean that Jesus is saying he is God. Other people dispute that position, some going so far as to doubt that Jesus even existed. Is it possible to generate a true consensus decision, yes or no, as to whether the Gospel of John is reliable, whether Jesus said "I and the father are one," or whether the ortodox interpretation of that sentence is correct? Certainly not. People have been arguing over that stuff for two thousand years and may still be arguing over it in another two thousand years. No one is going to generate consensus by ramming edits down the community's throat.

So what do we do? Probably the best answer is to detail both sides of the argument and trust the readers to make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence presented. "Many people believe Jesus said X, which is understood to mean Y. Others disagree, believing that it meant Z. And some people believe that Jesus never said X in the first place, because the only source is the Gospel of A." That is what we call a consensus statement. It doesn't say that one group is right and the other group is wrong, but it lists everyone's arguments and evidence and lets the reader make the final call. The article already goes a long way towards doing that, which is one reason why your deletions are getting you so much heat.

I don't think you're ever going to get consensus behind removing that paragraph of text altogether. Too many people believe that it is appropriate, and belongs in the list. What you might want to focus on is making sure that your position is more fully reflected in the text. For example, you brought up the "one in purpose" arguement on the talk page in the course of defending your delete. Well, instead of that, why not try to get that interpretation added to the text? Or, hop down to the library and get a couple of cites from scholars who doubt the authenticity of John. These are ways you can help to build articles that are driven by consensus rather than confrontation.

I know this may not seem like an appealing alternative. You have been fighting over this article for a long time, and it's easy to get caught up in the idea that you need to "win" and the other side needs to "lose" for justice to be done. But that's not the way it's supposed to be around here. We're looking for solutions that are respectful to everyone: your side, the other side, and the readers.

Hope I haven't gone on too long about this, and you will consider what I have tried to say.

Even if you don't think this is going to work, let me encourage you to read the WP:DR policy, which has a lot of possibilities for resolving disputes on articles, none of which involve incessant revert-warring.

I will close by emphasizing that someone needs to take the high road in this dispute. Why not let it be you? --Craigkbryant 17:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be satisfied if they were to change the name to the origional name. yeshua i believe it was. I wonder if i aught to suggest that instead of the deletion? ( yes i have read, and i am mulling over things)Gavin the Chosen 17:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons in Popular Culture

Hello Gabe, I see you have reinsertd the text on Joe Young again. I know that it has been reverted previously simply because most do not feel it fits in the context of the paragraph. The purpose is to present how Mormons are presented in popular culture. Your reinsert addresses only how one individual is presented. I think if you elaborated on the naiviety and innocence of the character and how that affects how those who are Mormons are perceived by the society at large you would have a much better edit and one that would stay in the article. Storm Rider 18:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case you were unaware

The Arbs are almost unanimous in what they want to do to you: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon/Proposed decision. I suggest getting your Wikipedia affairs in order now and being ready for a month's absence. I'm very sorry about all of this. ~~ N (t/c) 20:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. Though you may not believe me, after your vacation, I remain happy to work with you in improving articles of your choice - I might not always agree with you, but I feel that there were times in which we almost got things improved. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration Case

Here are the findings and recommendations of the Arbitration Committee.

Successful editing of Wikipedia requires a minimum level of emotional and intellectual maturity as well as competence in adequately identifying sources of information and expressing the information found. Users who fail to meet minimum standards may be banned until they are able to demonstrate adequate maturity and competence.

Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets Gavin_the_Chosen (talk · contribs) and others has engaged in a variety of immature behaviors [11], [12]. This immature behavior is accompanied by quarreling with other users, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2, inept POV editing [13] and scrambled syntax and spelling [14].

Gabrielsimon and his sockpuppets has frequently engaged in revert warring (see for example [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) and has been blocked multiple times for breaking the WP:3RR (see block log for Gabrielsimon and block log for Gavin the Chosen

Gabrielsimon (under any username) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one month. When he returns he may chose another username if he wishes. If problems evidencing immaturity emerge with the new username he may be banned for up to an additional month by any three Wikipedia administrators who, based on his edits and behavior, identify him and feel an additional month's ban may aid him him in gaining maturity. This remedy shall continue until he has edited Wikipedia for 6 months without being banned. A log shall be maintained on the decision page of all bans. He is also is limited to one revert per day per article. In addition he is limited to three reverts in total per 24 hours. He is instructed not to revert war at all and instead engage in dialogue on the talk pages of articles.

Should Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs) return using any sockpuppet or anonymous ip during any one month ban, the sockpuppet shall be banned indefinitely and the ban shall be extended to two months. Should Gabrielsimon violate the revert limit imposed on him he may be banned for a short period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"existing case"

is closed, this said eisting case. woudl that change your vote on that matter ( the arb thing) or would it remain unchanged?Gavin the Chosen 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but I hope you return in a month and do much better and succeed in being a productive Wikipedia editor after some practice. Fred Bauder 14:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to DreamGuy's RFAr. android 79 14:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

well, its been aqcecpted at aqny rate, so pleae feel free to add a plethora of damming evidance, perhaps we can get this thorn in everyones side user banned indefiunatly.Gavin the Chosen 05:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry that you are gone for a month. Have a nice vacation?

V. Molotov

20:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Remember that Wikipedia is not everything.

V. Molotov

20:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Friendly, impartial advice

...for when you get back. You may or may not remember me, we did have a little chat on my user talk page... I've only done a little editing on wikipedia (since I got City of Heroes as a gift, my spare time disappeared)... but anyway, we have a lot of common interests and since I read the discussion page on most articles I visit that seem like they'd get a lot of edits, I've seen a lot of your troubled history.

My advice to you is this: realize that on matters of belief, it is not necessarily ignorance or being ill-informed that makes someone disagree with you... it really could be that they believe something else. I don't believe Jesus said he was the son of God, for example... I don't believe anything in the Bible can be literally read to say that, and I'm not convinced the Bible is even accurate to begin with... but the text in the Bible is pretty sparse by modern standards and requires a lot of interpretation, so if somebody else reads the same thing and says "Here, this is Jesus saying he and God are one, that he is God", that's not their ignorance speaking, that's their belief... and if my belief is valid... isn't theirs, also?

Likewise with therianthropes vs. clinical lycanthropes... a person who thinks they're one and the same is not necessarily ignorant that therianthropes are practicing a spiritual belief... they merely have their own belief as to the root of that belief.

Is their belief any better or worse than the belief of the therianthropes? You might be inclined to think it is worse, because the therianthropes' belief isn't harming anybody or saying that they're wrong... but it's a matter of how the belief is acted on. If somebody calling people uninformed/ignorant because they believe against than the therianthropes, isn't that pretty much the same "sin" as saying somebody is delusional/ill for believing along wtih the therianthropes?

When you get down to it, saying that the people who disagree are uninformed or misinformed can be likened to the worst arrogance of proseltyzing missionaries throughout history: "These uninformed savages clearly have not heard the story of my god, or else they would turn their backs on their pagan idols."... the people who think that the Truth With A Capital T of their god is so obvious that anybody who hears the story will recognize it and anybody who doesn't seem to must be willfully rebellious? You know the types I'm talking to. They can crop up in any religion... but my point is... when you treat your "truth" as truth and everything else as POV, you risk becoming that person.

I'm not arguing for or against any side of anything here, but I hope these examples may furnish you with some perspective.Alexandra Erin 07:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy has been accepted. If you wish, make a short statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Evidence. Fred Bauder 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

expiration

I thought a month was over, but im still blocked. anyone willing to help?Gavin the Chosen 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have about three more hours and spare change left on your block. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy with no action taken. →Raul654 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been closed despite the arbitrators (aside from Fred Bauder) doing no work whatsoever. Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New identity.

Gabriel,

I have added a notice to this talk page indicating your new identity on Wikipedia. I am very concerned by your recent activity removing evidence of certain actions from the talk pages of your various user identities, and have taken it upon myself to add similar notices to your other user pages. --Craigkbryant 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

Per the indef block of Gimmiet (a known sock/alias of this account) by SlimVirgin, I have indefinately blocked Gavin the Chosen. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]