User talk:Justin Eiler/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archived talk page 01.

Contents

[edit] Thievery

Thanks for the note on your user page. I got a laugh out of that. :·) And nice use of "purloin" - don't see that word used very often. Now, I think I'll just take a few o' yours... --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mika Tan

It was.......appealing!  :P --Wgfinley 08:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Gastrich

Thank you for trying to appeal to Mr. Gastrich's better nature. I doubt that it'll do any good, but it was nice of you to make the effort. Poor guy needs to stop digging himself deeper before he hits China. -Colin Kimbrell 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first well intentioned person to try to deal honestly with Jason Gastrich and help him get along with others, nor will you be the last. Because there is an mPOV problem here, there is only one version of working with him that he understands, and that is to be completely and utterly supportive. Others who have tried to help him in the past have either gotten frustrated that nothing could be done, gotten burned, or declared to be his atheist enemy.

I don't seek a banishment either, but I do hope that the RfC might result in a serving of humility.

Harvestdancer 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy

Justin, where were you when User:A.J.A. nominated 12 Christian biographies for deletion? Did you assume bad faith with him? Or just me?

If you look at the entries I nominated, you'll see that they weren't notable.

I also need to mention that your comments on my talk page are distasteful. Not only are you assuming bad faith, you're also rebuking me in public when Jesus specifically told you to do so in private. If you would have obeyed the Lord, you would have found that my heart was in the right place. As it stands, I want little to do with you. --Jason Gastrich 05:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Watching Gastrich chide someone for hypocrisy is like watching Howard Stern chew out Dennis Miller for being rude, crude, and socially unacceptable on the air. No...wait...at least that would be entertaining. - WarriorScribe 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Justin, just ignore him. He always twists the words to suit his agenda. By the way, thanks for stepping in with those timely comments. I get tired of gastrich accusing me of being anti-Christian all the time when that is such an obvious strawman. David D. (Talk) 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting queers

You sure the Bible supports queers? I would use the term "homosexual," but you used "queer" in your user page. --Jason Gastrich 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, more twisting of words. That is a user box jason NOT a quote. Are you going to hold this against Justin? (rhetorical) David D. (Talk) 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Justin jumped into my life without introducing himself, throwing scriptures at me and condemning me, as he assumed I nominated some Wikipedia entries for deletion in bad faith. All I did was ask him if he could support his public support for homosexuality with God's Word. Perhaps you should mind your own business. --Jason Gastrich 05:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Jason, you emailed me first. Justin Eiler 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
(Deleted comments by WarriorScribe) WS, if you two have a history of animosity, you two need to work it out. Your arguments do not involve me. Justin Eiler 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
They weren't arguments. They were reasonable questions given the circumstances, but...okay, it's your page. Sorry to intrude. - WarriorScribe 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Did you really think that was a personal attack? i also asked Itake to go and look at the RfC. And he does need help, it is one of the worst RfC cases I have seen and he is not helping himself at all. I consider that all sides should have their say and those requests were serious. I have also tried to give Jason some advice on how to approach the RfC. It is sincere, although may be against my better judgement. David D. (Talk) 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, David--I didn't equate "Daycd" with "David D." At this point I'm just trying to put out the fires, and I didn't check to see where the firehose was pointed. My profoundest apologies. Justin Eiler 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. ;-) You are doing a very good job and i can see how the smoke may get a little thick. David D. (Talk) 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harvestdancer

Hey, is this the same Harvestdancer that uset to post on news:a.r.w and news:a.r.w.m? I used to post there as Taliesin of Earthstar. Justin Eiler 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Harvestdancer 02:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, when you used to frequent those groups, were you southern-baptist or wiccan? If the former, you were perhaps the most polite one there. Harvestdancer 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I was Wiccan--converting back to Christianity has been a recent development (January of this year). And ... well, truth to tell, I'm not at all comfortable with Southern Baptists anymore. I'm seriously considering the Episcopalians: they seem level-headed enough. ;) Justin Eiler 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to check out the ELCA Lutherans then. Lutherans have provided the second best theologians after the pre-reformation Roman Catholics. Harvestdancer 18:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamas

What is the source for categorizing Hamas as anti-semitic? Who has called them that? Is that a category that can be applied to anyone by anyone based on personal opinion? Just because I disagree with your category, it is not vandalism. Don't throw accusations around willy-nilly. It's a form of personal attack. Thanks. --68.211.68.122 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is indeed correct that Arabic is a semitic language, the word Anti-Semitism in English does not refer to a hatred of all Semitic people: it is specifically in reference to the Jews, and the Wikipedia category is designed in acknowledgement with that definition.
Removing relevant material from any page of Wikipedia is, indeed, vandalism: telling me that I am "throwing accusations around willy-nilly" is nothing more than an excuse.
If you have a problem with the categorizations as they stand, then I recommend that you discuss them on the Hamas talk page. By doing so, community consensus can be gained, and unilateral edits of controversial subjects are avoided.
Thank you. Justin Eiler 13:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. Who has accused Hamas of being anti-semitic? Is it just your opinion? --68.211.68.122 13:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on Talk:Hamas. Justin Eiler 13:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] qaStaH nuq?

You are welcome. Zeq 13:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] see hamas talk

[edit] Old talk page

Some people have been posting messages to you on "User talk:Justin.eiler" (Wikilink removed), underneath the redirect command, so that you cannot even see them unless you edit the page. I thought I'd mention it in case you weren't aware of it; I only happened to find it because your old talk page appeared on Special:Doubleredirects today! --Russ Blau (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RussBlau. Somehow I've got two old user pages: I've put them both up for speedy delete.

Here are all your messages from the old page (you deleted your old User: pages, but not the old User talk: pages)...

No Problem's Justin,Didn't realize I couldn't advertise.Thanks anyway.Scott Whitbread.

                                                         The Anchor Pub/Hachijo Island Tours
                                                              www.hachijo.net

Sorry about removing the tag on the SquareSound page. I wasn't aware that this wasn't allowed and I thought the advertisement issue had been fixed. My apologies. I'm not sure if the current article reads like an advertisement still, but, if it does, I'll happily edit it further. My intention in making the page was principally to document a history of the site, though I agree there was probably excessive self-promotion in the original draft. Thank you.

[edit] Gastrich RfC

It's admirable you're trying to resolve this amicably but the key to how this will play out is found in Gastrich's response. Right about here:

"Many people do not like me because I love Jesus Christ and I do a lot to further the cause of Christ. Those same people will say they despise me for different reasons, but they're lying."

That's a totally impenetrable barrier.

Yeah, I have a history with him and we've had some nasty run ins on Usenet. But far as being "followed around" goes, he's made a point of invading online atheist groups and disrupting them. I don't even try to hide I was pulled into being more involved with the Wiki because he was mucking with articles about atheists to suit his agenda (starting with Anthony_Flew). To the extent he's being "followed" it's because he's doing everything he can to provoke. His "delete the atheists" campaign being a prime example. The online atheist community is small. You hear things. Particularly about Gastrich's latest stunt. He raises such a stink where ever he goes, it's hard to not notice.

I won't bore you with too many details but I think the Wiki community should at least be aware that three of the people whose articles he's AfD'd are people he's had personal conflicts with. Reggie_Finley, Farrell_Till, and myself. And he's spent a great deal of time on the ones about Reggie and myself. He nurses grudges. He'll claim he doesn't but his actions say otherwise (of course, I'm lying and I say this only because I hate Jesus you see).

Anyway, take this with as many grains of salt as you feel appropriate. But even being a Christian won't protect you from that impenetrable barrier. He's already reffered to one Wiki Christian as a "so called Christian" and I see he fired his first shot at you over "queers." He has disrupted and turned Christian forums against him. It's what he does everywhere he goes.

Mark K. Bilbo 05:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My post on White Castle's page was Acurrate though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_and_kumar related article I was referencing.

[edit] It isn't "vandalism" to clean up a section that's worthless trash.

The section on "Iraq Policy" on Tom Palmer's page was written by people who hate Dr. Palmer, and who are attempting to simultaneously smear him while promoting themselves. As I wrote when I edited the section the first time, this page is about Dr. Palmer, and not about every single argument he's ever had with anyone in his 40 year career in public policy. Much of that section is out of context, untrue, and does not add to the value of the poage. Further, its written completely from a non-netural point of view. I don't know how closely you've followed this page, but to call what I did "vandalism" is ludicrous.

[edit] User 216.159.98.230

I have noticed that this user vandalised The Beatles page at 21:32 today. As you were the last Admin. to have issued a final warning, I thought you should be aware of this. Best wishes, Lion King 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lion King.
You said "I have noticed that this user vandalised The Beatles page at 21:32 today. As you were the last Admin. to have issued a final warning, I thought you should be aware of this." However, I'm not an Admin--I'm just Joe Schmoe Editor. :D But I'll take a look at it in my Anti-Vandalism list today.
Thanks for the heads-up. Justin Eiler 14:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, cheers, Lion King 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 70.104.243.114

since you dont do you mom can i do her??? FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my is't diff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! sincerly your wost nightmare

I think that wins this month's award for "Clueless Screwball."

[edit] 198.68.225.15

Ok, no problem. I think I edited the page after you removed it, so it might still be there.

I added news links to verify each instance.

Thanks for explaining why the article was removed.

[edit] 68.36.144.90

hi justin,

thanks for your imput concerning my writings on leo volpe. since a link is given to the group that he founded, i felt compelled to warn any potential viewers about this group i spent 13 years in. i understand the policies now, and i know that my viewpoints would be removed, but i hope i raised some concern with someone who might otherwise be sucked in my groups such as this. my name is nicole and i appreciate you taking the time out to give me advice. thanks. you can write me back at woodwaif40@yahoo.com if you have any questions. i still don't know my way aroung wiki enough yet to set up a page like you did.

nicole

[edit] Maybe it wasn't the best edit

I originally got rid of that section, because it seemed outline reasons for getting an abortion (social factors, & economic factors), and not just, "the pregnancy will kill the mother if she doesn't have an abortion", or "she didn't want to bring the child to term" kind of thing. Chooserr 19:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand that. It's a tough subject--but I think the distinction is a good one, in that it differentiates between reasons on the medical side. The list of reasons helps show a difference between real therapeutic abortions and elective abortions by defining what a therapeutic abortion actually is in detail. Justin Eiler 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Justin

Go check my User contributions. You will find I am no sockpuppet. In fact, all I have done is positive work, such as recent changes patrolling. Just thought you might want to know, as you referred to me as a suspected sockpuppet when you deleted my welcome. Kukini 14:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aloha, Kukini. I apologize profoundly for the confusion--when I was talking about a suspected sockpuppet, I was refering to User:LaShanda Martinique. There's been a new contender for "The Next Willy on Wheels," and I was not clear in who I was referring to. Justin Eiler 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No problemo. Peace. Kukini 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gastrich meat puppets

Just for you information there is a good chance that Joshua39215 (talk • contribs), Jack White1 (talk • contribs), RockGod (talk • contribs) and Juicy Juicy (talk • contribs) are actually Gastrich's meat puppet Uncley Davey. He posted in the Gastrich RfC and has a more permanent home at usenetpostsdotcom (talk • contribs). See the following discussion. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, David. Justin Eiler 22:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Hovind and Louisiana Baptist University blocks

I recognise that Gastrich enjoys being a pointless troll on these, and other articles. Giving him the satisfaction of having an impact on Wikipedia without him actually having to go to any effort at all is not something I think we should be doing. At the moment, the articles are surviving. If he decides to play the fool again, they can always be briefly protected then. WP:SEMI and WP:PPol are not pre-emptive, remember, and open-editing is a key part of what Wikipedia is about. -Splashtalk 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Flew

I never said Flew advocated theism, I said he advocated deism. There's a subtle difference, and the intro paragraph to the article is quite misleading. He is no longer an atheist, and as such, I think it is important that he be noted as, if not an advocate of deism, a deist. Aristotle1990 03:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I typed theism instead of deism--I can only plead insufficient caffeination. It's corrected now.
However, the article already clearly notes that he now considers himself a deist. Adding it again seems redundant, at best. Justin Eiler 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Justin.eiler

For your information, I restored the redirect for now because there is absolutely no guarantee that users are not going to create that page again and try to leave a message to you. The best possible option I can think of, with your permission, is to protect the page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If that can be done under WP:PPol, then that's fine--before that, however, I'll add a note that it's no longer my talk page with a link to the current. Thanks! Justin Eiler 01:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca and Clann Breassil

[edit] Hey mate

As a member of the irish goverment protected Clan of Breassil, I can tell you, if I edit something, it's there to stay.

Show some respect, I read the entire article...

[edit] Breassil

I'd suggest you look on the Irish Goverment websites about it and study some. This isn't a personal war, stick to the facts, not opinions.

[edit] Breassil

http://www.iol.ie/~gerardb/history.htm

I seem to see it, maybe I just imagine websites...

[edit] Reconciliation

Hi Justin,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.


Jason, you said "The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing." While I quite agree that many (perhaps most, perhaps even all) of the recent sockpuppets are not yours, I must point out that you did start with the sockpuppets. Those who have decided to impersonate you are merely following your example.
Jason, I would greatly prefer to be reconciled with you, not only as my brother in Christ, but as a fellow Wikipedia editor. But I am forced to remind you that the first step of reconciliation requires that you take responsibility for the wrongs that you have done. I have absolutely no doubt that much of the later disturbances has little to do with you, and therefore is not your responsibility. But I cannot reconcile with you until you take responsibility for the wrongs that you did.
Rest assured, I have been praying for you and will continue to do so. But--in accordance with the commandments of our Lord--I cannot accept excuses made to evade repentance.
Justin Eiler 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No wiki header

Thanks for explaining. It was confusing, the actual wiki helped to divide a long section, and for that matter the wiki/nowiki fight was messing up section editing (since the edit command lists sections by number. This is section 28 of your talk page, it will be section 29 when I hit "Save page.") Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted this because?

NOTE: The following is a QUOTE from the discussion page that was deleted by Justin:

"Yes, Arch, you are essentially correct. Linguistically, that is how it works. MPerel would have a point if we were discussing Proto-Indo-European, or Proto-German, or Proto-Semitic, but we're not. I don't have the time to type out a Greek lesson right now, but reversing Ιηςους to Hebrew would yield Yes(h)u. Jim62sch 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"

This date is when I left the message: Jim62sch 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the diff showing who deleted it and when: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=43040760&oldid=43040594

First of all, deleted what? Second of all, why did you leave this on Justin's page? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we clear now? I still need an answer as deleing from a talk page is a no-no unless there was some serious violation within the comment, which there was not. Jim62sch 12:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jim and Arch--what happened is I was trying to revert Arch's removal of the "Nowiki" tags--he thought I included them accidently, but they were part of my proposal for a new subsection (you can see the Nowikied heading further down in the diff). I evidently took too long and you got your edit in while I was trying to get mine finished. I had no intent to remove anyones posting, and I apologize for the confusion. Justin Eiler 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Justin, sorry if I was jumpy...thanks for letting me know what happened. I didn't think there was any intent knowing you from the Gastrich debacle (BTW, he tried to kiss up to me the other day, I still feel dirty). Thanks again! Jim62sch 18:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bear with us

I appreciate it's slow going getting some of us up to speed with your point and there will always be other editors who disagree completely. As far as I can see everyone feels that all the information currently brought to the article is of value and all the different ways of displaying this have their merits. Even though I would prefer the "link" and no "squiggles" option myself it does seem as though currently the other pages mentioned (abraham, socrates etc) use the different languages approach. Since we have one week to push for FA status I think it's best at the moment if we fall into line with the other articles. I hope you are OK with the "leave a gap" suggestion as to my eye it is less confusing and is probably the nearest we will get to a compromise at the moment. SophiaTalkTCF 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, folks. The biggest "contributor" to my stress level actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia--it's my physical health (I've got something that acts like rheumatoid arthritis, and today's a pretty bad day). So it's probably just the best thing to do to walk away for a while so I don't allow my own bad temper to interfere with the effort. Justin Eiler 16:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My mother-in-law also suffers with that and lives on pain killers in the damp months so I you have my sympathy. Hope it eases off soon and look forward to seeing your contributions on the article again. SophiaTalkTCF 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My sympathies are with you as well, Justin. Those I know who suffer this malady endure much pain, and I'm so sorry you face this : ( . I came here to tell you that your insightful participation at the Jesus page is very appreciated. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Jesus

Thanks for trying to revert some vandalism. Unfortunately, the vandal in this instance had made multiple edits, and you only caught the last one. When reverting vandalism, please check carefully to make sure you take the article back to the last clean edit, as other users will assume that you've done this and revert future vandalism back to your edit. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Waggers 21:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do--thanks, both for the reminder and for the encouragement. :D Justin Eiler 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca

Thanks for the heads up. I probably would have figured it out. I more wanted to challenge the allegation, as simply deleting what might be a valid claim . . . well, I'm not that bold.--Vidkun 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Goodandevil_discussion

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/s/User_talk%7EJustin_Eiler_Archive_01_4a72.html"