User talk:Friday/archive2

Welcome!

Hi Friday! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Ragib 28 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

Caterpillar Inc - controversies

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

sigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caps and Word of Wisdom

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

Progressive Bloggers

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

Vanity

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

Criticism

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

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

Vfd

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

Your comments on my page

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

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

the rfc

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

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

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

Gabrielsimon 02:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Advocate wanted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LaRouche

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

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

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

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

Why are you reveting my userpage?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chipmonk's VFD

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

wolves

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

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

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

And explain why you object to scare quotes around "justification". Tell him what those scare quotes do to the word. And then suggest an alternative that he can understand and accept, but which does not compromise the integrity of the article. Uncle Ed 00:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

"Original Research"

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

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

Deleted section

From another user's talk page:

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

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

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

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

About Gabrielsimon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request made

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

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

Ecologics

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

Biting...

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

thanks

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

terroist

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

Gabrielsimon 21:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Contentless articles

I'm presently working on it.

patience

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

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

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

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

Otherkin

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

Gabrielsimon

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

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

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

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

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

Creation science

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

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

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

sigh

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

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

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

regarding NPOV/Otherkin

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