User talk:Gimmiet

Welcome!

Hello, Gimmiet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

--JAranda | yeah 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Older messages at Archive1

It's nice to see the unblocking of your page...

I hope I'll see you around. I don't have as much time nor patience for Wikipedia... so I don't really need to stay here as much (if at all), I try and it fails. (I look at my contribs. and I know that I won't be getting an RfA approved [apparently the truth is considered "incivility" for some reason.] I doubt that I'll get an FA approved as I see more pompous editors there, so I won't even try.) I really do think some of the editors have a valid point: you shouldn't sockpuppet or add POV in articles. (even though I don't like some of the things they are doing). Note that several editors have joined a "coalition" against you here, and note that you told DreamGuy that "more than one person" was upset with him. Think. Could this argument be made against me? Here, yes. Also, I want you to ask yourself why you are here. I know you want to help Wikipedia, not harm it, and to a very large degree you have done so: is it worth this? Does adding POV and making other users upset worth being blocked from what you love to do? That is: add knowledge to the encyclopedia. I hope you are doing better in regards to your personal life, and I also have to state that you could take into consideration your own website! None of the people can block you there. As a matter of fact that would be vice versa. See you later, I hope you take my messages and respond : ) ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block/Comment removal

I don't think this was a good thing to do. Friday (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

\hes basicallycoming off as insulting, whifh i dont apprecaiate. i left a notice, and beforeon the page he removed MY commentsGimmiet 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't talking about kittens and daisies, sure, but it wasn't the kind of remark that warrants removal. Just leave DreamGuy alone. Friday (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why should I leave him alone when he wont leave ME alone?Gimmiet 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for you on that. I do have an answer about how I will respond to you being disruptive: I'll apply blocks fairly liberally. I've blocked you for 24 hours for disruption for the above edit. A single edit rarely warrants such a block, but you have displayed a pattern of pestering DreamGuy. You ought to know better by now. Friday (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you ever the gonna stop treating ME like garbage?... i mean the guy keeps removing MY comments and INMSULTING me, and i dotnwanrt to be insu7lt4ed, so i do ONE fucking thing and I get blocked? yeah, REAL fair....Gimmiet 06:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about one thing. But, yes, I admit I'm using a liberal interpretation of "disruption" here. If anyone disagrees and wants to unblock, I won't argue or be offended. If you had reacted by restoring the comments instead of asking WHY you shouldn't pester him, I wouldn't have been inclined to call it disruption. Friday (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its a damned logical question, why should i not react the wa y i did? huh? its fair toremove things that are snarky and uncalled for, iveseen all kinds of others do it without any reprocussions. leave me in peace.Gimmiet 06:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hint: don't delve into DreamGuy's contributions to see where he's in disputes with others. If you can't resist doing that, then see if you can resist responding to his comments. There is a long-running dispute on Talk:Bigfoot; inserting yourself into the conversation to merely say "Hey, everybody! Look how mean DreamGuy is being!" is extremely immature. You're giving us the appearance that you're obsessed with DreamGuy and intend to stalk him to the end of his days, even if that's not really your intent. If you can pretend he doesn't exist, you won't get blocked as often. It's that simple. android 79 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wasnt even talking to him, all i did was start trying to have a part in the conversation today and HE responded to MY words, I didnt instigatge, and yet, I get blocked. intersting.Gimmiet 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the process of refactoring that talk page to repair damage made by Beckjord at the same time you left your comment. It's extremely likely that he didn't even notice that you had said anything.

Regardless, talking about him where he's guaranteed to see it is just as instigating behavior as talking to him. android 79 06:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, I have unblocked you, at DreamGuy's suggestion. He sent an email saying he had accidentally removed comments of yours from a talk page, and he didn't want to see you blocked over what could be considered a misunderstanding. I think it's safe to assume a few people are keeping their eyes on you, and I for one will look particularly harshly on things that look like pestering of DreamGuy. If you can keep your cool, obey the revert parole and let DreamGuy edit in peace, who knows, you might just go a good long time without a block. Friday (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbcom sanction

Please note that your ArbCom sanction, that you are "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," remains in effect. In the event that you feel you may have violated this sanction, the best way to convince any adminstrator that you did so accidentally rather than willfully in disregard that you were asked to discuss on talk rather than revert is to revert your reversion of yourself. Not saying that you *ARE* in violation of your limitation, just a quick heads up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like your reverts at Otherkin are a parole violation. You should put it back. If it were unreferenced, I'd defend your right to remove it somewhat aggressively. But removal of sourced information is another story. Friday (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it a bit more, and I believe this is what happened: You removed a piece you disagreed with. This is reasonable. However, someone objected strongly enough to revert your change. At this point, the time for reverting is over and the time for discussion begins. However, you removed it again. You were reverted again by a different editor, yet you persisted in editing by brute force. To make things worse, you told others not to edit war in your summary. This isn't very reasonable. In my book, you were edit warring here, and you certainly violated your one revert parole. I've blocked you for 12 hours for parole violation. Friday (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it goes discussion , then fixing to final version, if people keep removing what i try to do beforethe discussions over, how the hlel is anything i do supposed to get done?Gimmiet 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one who reverted more than once. You could have continued discussion, but instead you decided to violate your parole and get blocked. Don't try to paint yourself as the victim yet again. android 79 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yuou, my un friendly friend, should rtry to see things from my perspective, if EVERYONE removes what im trying to do, seemingly AUTOMATICALLY, how could i NOT feel victimizeD?Gimmiet 20:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone automatically reverts you - which I'm not saying they do - maybe that means your edits are wrong. Just something to think about. --Golbez 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about people dont just blindly revert cause its me, how about they read and actually try to engage in discussion... i know some do, but not many.Gimmiet 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear here that I did not blindly revert you - in fact, I was quite clear that I left the categories in your cut-down state because there was active discussion on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember seeing anyone say they had reverted your edit because it was made by you. I saw a few people explain on the talk page why they thought the article was better off with that citation than without it. Your explanation for why it should go away seemed to be based on your not wanting anything in the article that could be seen as negative. That's not how we do things here; we attempt neutral point of view, not sympathetic point of view. Surely you know this already?! Yes, what's neutral is debatable, but as a general rule, if you want to remove sourced information, you need to make a convincing case about why it should go away. Friday (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you because you removed unsourced content from the article with no obvious reason for doing so, and without discussion. I do that to just about anyone, not just you.

You know, I am sure that I've tried to explain this to you before, but here it is again. This is how you should proceed from this point forward:

Clearly identify changes you want to make to an article, and find sources that will aid your argument, if applicable.
Post a concise explanation of your proposed changes to the appropriate talk page. Do not edit the article at this point.
Wait for others to comment. Be prepared to wait a reasonable amount of time, as much as 24 hours.
If at least two other editors agree with your changes, go ahead and be bold and make them. If someone else that disagrees comes along and reverts them, engage them politely in discussion on the talk page. Do not revert.
If you find that no one agrees with you, do not make the changes. Abide by any consensus that develops during the discussion.
If you do end up making changes, politely ask that others do spell- and grammar-checking on your edits afterward.

If you do this, and if you can refrain from personal attacks, you won't get blocked again. android 79 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, if you'll agree to do that, I'll unblock you right now. Keep in mind you're likely to be blocked again if you start edit warring, though. Friday (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parole violation

It looks to me like you violated your parole again, at Otherkin. You removed some "fact" tags (among other changes) here. They were put back, and you removed them again here. I believe this is a blockable offense, however I blocked you the last couple times, so I'm not too inclined to do it again this time. If someone else agrees that this is a parole violation, they are of course free to apply a block if they wish. Friday (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, a violation. For now, I'm willing to let you try to sort this out with Hipocrite on the talk page. android 79 19:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not science

The article on Otherkin must adhere to WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it does, if you look on www.otherkin.net Gimmiet 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We'll go through the fact tags one at a time. You point me at the right page to verify the fact, I'll verify the fact and put the appropriate reference in the article. Will that work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gimmiet! Just a quick heads up, Hipocrite is doing you a pretty huge favor by taking the time to help you get this content back in with the proper sourcing. You can't just point at otherkin.net and say 'the answers are there', it's no different from an encyclopedia writer pointing at a library and saying "the reference material is in there somewhere". You've made a lot of contributions and been with the project for a while, I really hope that you understand the ideas behind WP:V by now! If not, I hope my message helps. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps something more definate would be usefull then...Gimmiet 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/Awakening http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/AwakeningDefined http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/StagesOfAwakening http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/WhoAwakens http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/BornAwakened http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/ForcedAwake http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/ProblemsWithAwakening http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/PanicAndParanoia http://www.otherkin.net/wiki/Manual/GoingHome

hope this helpsGimmiet 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the articles talk page, it does not. Please review my comments there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbcom sanction 2

Please remember your arbcom sanction, that you are "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." If you insist on reinserting facts into the article, you must cite a WP:RS Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the WIKIPEDIA article on skminwalkers IS reliable. so stop pestering.Gimmiet 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source for other Wikipedia articles. You must determine which sources cited in the Skinwalkers article are used to support the claims you wish to make in Otherkin, and then determine if they are reliable and relevant. Only then can you add this claim to Otherkin. android 79 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have a LOT to do. if you want to find the source, go for it! i dont know WHERE to find one, so how the hell am i suppoosed to? im not an expert on natiuve american cultures that arent mine...Gimmiet 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is your responsibility to make sure information you put in the articles is sourced, not mine. If you want to avoid being blocked for your repeated violation of your arbcom sanction, you should revert your own reverts - back to my version, without the unsourced information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well why dont you HELP me find stuff then? the skinwalker refernce is valid in the otherkin article, and the only change i made in the skinwalker article is to remove the EVIL and WITCHCRAFT refences, because both have nothing to do with skinwlakers.19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You were in technical violation of parole earlier, but it looked like you were making a good effort to work with other editors, so I didn't worry about it much. However a few recent edits concern me, it sure looks like edit warring both on Otherkin and to a lesser extent on Skin-walker. I'm guessing you've violated 3RR on Otherkin by now, and you've certainly gone past the number of reverts indicated by your parole. That's not good. Friday (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ive asked people before not to remove stuff until i can or cant, find cites forthings... and frankly hipo is getting annoying asking me to find all kinds of shit when im trying to use this site as a way to relax... i aint really much for getting stressed for no reason...Gimmiet 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any hoo, i TRY to get along, i really do, ....

I am asking for verifiable citations for uncited information in an article. I'm giving you an entire day to find each cite I ask for. If you find a cite in the far distant future that works for something deleted in the distant past, you can reinsert it. I could have just deleted all the unverified information from the article wholesale, but I'm trying to make your life easier (and providing you structure to your research.) You were able to "save" one fact with a reference, and through N and some random guy on another article's talk page, another fact was partially saved. Reverting over and over will not win - you are under arbcom sanction, so I will win all revert wars. You *HAVE* to work with me - and everyone who has looked at the situation has said I am being eminently reasonable. If you can convince ANY adminstrator to get me to change my proposed verification protocol - ANY ADMINSTRATOR AT ALL, then I will do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all itlooks like is that you want to damamge articles. casuethats all i see.Gimmiet 19:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly reccomend that you engage in WP:DR with me. I will waive the 2-endorser requirement on RFC, if you feel that is the way to go. I suggest that it is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to know abpout what is a relaibale source and all that, so why is it so unhearable thatr you might go looking forthe cites youeself as well?Gimmiet 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the information is verifiable at all. I'm not interested in wasting my time looking for stuff that does not exist. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then stay away from the subject and go looking at things you CAN work on without being, well, a deleitionist.Gimmiet 19:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gimmiet! The burden is actually on you to provide references. Could you please acknowledge that you have read WP:V and understand what it means? Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unsourced information from articles is not "deletionism". It is policy.

Hipocrite has every right to remove unsourced information from Otherkin. Until you understand that it is your duty to provide sources for the facts you want to remain in the article, you are going to have conflicts.

I've blocked you for three days for violating your revert parole. Please use that time to find reliable sources for the claims that are disputed. android 79 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to working with you to make sure all of the Otherkin article is verifiable on your return. If you have any concerns about changes being made to the article, or cites that you have found for the item in question, I will continue to check your user-talk page for comments during the duration of your weekend ban. Luckily, I will be out of town for the weekend, so I probably won't be able to move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

I shouldn't really have to say this, but please don't do drive-by removals of things like merge or verify tags. If you don't feel they're needed anymore, explain why on the talk page. I know you think they make pages look ugly, but they also serve a useful purpose. Friday (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

You should know by now to not post on my talk page. DreamGuy 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you wanna be a prick and not go look at the amusing comic, thats fine by me, i am just trying to be niceGimmiet 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to my talk page is not considered nice when you've been told over and over never to post Calling me a prick of course is not nice either. DreamGuy 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block

I've blocked your account for 24 hours for violation of your 1 revert per day probation on vampire lifestyle as described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gabrielsimon#Remedies. Please resist the urge to revert war in the future. Bryan 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Gimmet violated 3RR at Vampire lifestyle by also posting as 69.195.126.177 (talk · contribs), which falls within the same range as his previous IP 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And 2 reverts on Cahokia.Pschemp | Talk 07:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, the record of your blocks may not be needed by you, but it's quite useful to other people trying to understand the situation. This has all been explained before. If you weren't already blocked, I'd be fairly inclined to block you for repeated removal of the notifications. Friday (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen...

Some people are discussing you here. Just thought you might like to know. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You heard it...

but did you listen? People are gearing up for yet another stupid run at ArbCom to remove your editing privlidges forever. I don't know what side to land on. Can you stop edit warring? When the 24 hour block wears off, the next time you violate your 1rr parole, I'll join the bandwagon of people who think that any positive contribution you might make in the future is massively outweighed by the damage you're likley to do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1RR enforcement

Hi Gimmiet, because of the recent reverting, three admins have agreed that, from now on, each time you violate your parole you will receive an automatic one-week block. This means the following: (1) you may only revert another editor's work once per article per day (1RR); (2) you may only revert up to a maximum of three times per day anywhere on the website; (3) you're not allowed to edit using other accounts; (4) you're not allowed to edit as an anon IP address, and it's your responsibility to make sure you stay logged in when you're editing. The discussion took place here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gabriel. If you want an ultra-simplified version, just don't revert at all. Do that, and it'll be hard to go wrong. (Don't sockpuppet, of course, but that goes without saying.) Friday (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel, don't get suprised if you get an indef. block now. I tried supporting you, but you have done little to improve the situation. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest

I suggest you not attempt to insert yourself into a dispute that you only know about because you watch my contributions like a hawk. You are likley to just get yourself blocked again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you know nothing about why i am where i am, by the by, dont start calling me on your own techniques of wiki harrassment.Gimmiet 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Hipocrite is talking about, but I urge you not to be intimidated by his tactics. Johntex\^talk 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nop worries, his so called tactics simply show a lack of maturity and an overall insecurity of charactor, if i may psychoanalyze :)Gimmiet 02:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Gabriel, you have a poor track record here when it comes to conflict. Might I suggest that you re-read WP:AGF and spend some time letting EVERY perceived slight roll over you like water off a ducks back? You may quickly find that 1. the world doesn't end, and 2. you remain unblocked. Not every fight must be joined, especially when the person doing it (you) has extraordinarily poor experience discerning when to start swinging and when to walk away. I'd like so avoid seeing the words 'Gimmliet', 'arbcom', 'reblocked', and 'Reeses Pieces' in the same edit summary on my watchlist. Well, less so the Reeses Pieces part, but you get the idea. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parole violation

You've violated your one revert parole on Otherkin. Just when I was hoping you wouldn't edit war. I blocked you for 12 hours. Friday (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im NOT on parole any more, friday.Gimmiet 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and, you havnt finsihed the conversation , and yet you changed thinfgs ANYWAY, so guess what, you should NOT have reverted me YET at least.Gimmiet 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on parole?! Err, what? Your talk page message makes it pretty clear, I thought. Check out User_talk:Gimmiet#1RR_enforcement. Friday (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thats outdatyed, one of the many reasons why i stayed low for so long.Gimmiet 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were on a 1rr parole even before that message. It was imposed by the arb com, remember? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon#Remedies. You really need to understand the terms of your parole - you keep insisting you're not violating it, when in fact you are. Friday (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

im insisting that ITS OVER, and has been for a while. 1rr is really aggravating. please stop enforcing whats long goneGimmiet 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not determine when it is over. The ruling states:

3) Gabrielsimon (talk • contribs) 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.

Note that it does not have an expiration date. And even if it lasted for a year, which is usually the upper limit for ArbCom bans (not probations), you still have another 5 months til it runs out. Please stop saying it is over, and please abide by the ruling. You said you had 'recovered'; start showing it. The probation does not cease simply because you said you have reformed. --Golbez 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were doing ok..

In case you want to not be blocked more, here's how I see things went wrong. You removed the "see also". Well, that's all been discussed before, but things change. Trying it again isn't neccessarily unreasonable. However, a few people disagreed, for the same reasons as before. At that point, trying making your case on the talk page again is fine, but you shouldn't have reverted it back again while it was being discussed. You were the only one who wanted it removed, and a few other people did not. For an editor with no previous history of trouble, you wouldn't have been blocked for edit warring until you broke the 3rr. But you are expected to take extra care to not edit war- hence the 1 revert parole.

It looks like people had previously thought it was a sufficient problem to block you for a week when this happens- I took it easy and decided to try to nip the problem in the bud with a short block at the first sign of trouble. I can't guarantee others will do the same. If you make a change, and someone disagrees and reverts it, don't put it back the way you like it. It's that easy. Friday (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

even on this medication ,its not exactly easy to maintain focus long anough to function quite how i want to.Gimmiet 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Just be aware that if you can't control yourself Wikipedia admins will do it for you by blocking you. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

Gimmiet, the block has been extended to one week as agreed here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jerk. theres NO freaking reason to be such a putz about that. ( note : only saying what comes to mind, no insults are inteneded to b e serious)Gimmiet 20:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. You can't excuse being incivil by saying you don't mean it. Don't write it, okay? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all it is is simple, she had nothing to do with this particular issue and she insisits on sticking her nose in and makling things wrose for me, AGAIN, so how would you LIKE me to react? say thank you to her for being unfair and more or less abusive of her power over me?Gimmiet 01:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very close to being blocked indefinitely if you don't quit your personal attacks, snide remarks, bad editing, reverting, and whining. We've had enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by we you mean you. if you dont mind, just leave me alone, thanks, i truely am about fed up with the way you treat me. i am TRYING and have been TRYING top do things right for quite some time now, and although someone else wasALREADY dealing with this particular problem , you stuck your nose in anyway for NO REASON and made things wrose for me again, so in essance, if you do not LIKE me saying i dont like how you treat me and that i thjink your acting like a jerk, then heres a hint, STOP ACTING LIEK A JERK. personal attack? no, obseravtion of YOUR behjavioural pattern, YES, whining? no, asking for one more time for YOU to stop with a rather UNFAIR behavioural pettern? yes. to reiterate. please leave me alone, slim.Gimmiet 01:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

I've blocked this account indefinitely. There's no reason editors should have to put up with this behavior when editing articles, or admins when enforcing arbcom rulings. Not only did he violate his parole for the umpteenth time, he's now saying it's not even applicable any more, which bodes ill for the future. It's gone on long enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about bloody time, that's all I can say. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, there goes my entertainment. --Golbez 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jenu

The article Jenu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks inline citations; probably does not meet WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Firestar464 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]