User talk:Jason Gastrich/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vote stacking

FeloniousMonk talked to you about vote-stacking. I'm going to echo that. You should also know that I consider that this [1] is also open to question, and this [2] would generally be interpreted as a personal attack. Given your clear lack of neutrality in these articles I strongly suggest that you take a step back. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. "With all due respect, he has likely written more books than you've read" is definitely a personal attack. You should read WP:NPA before proceeding. --Pierremenard 13:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You two are barking up the wrong tree. I've simply encouraged people to vote; perfectly within Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, simply noting that a nominator nominated 10 Christian biography entries for deletion in the same day and saying I don't know if we can assume good faith certainly isn't an attack. Furthermore, my comments to WarriorScribe were a joke. Maybe you two should take a step back. --Jason Gastrich 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF is policy, accusing others of bad faith in nomination is a big deal and gets people's backs up. AfD is no big deal until someone comes along and makes it one, it's not a vote, the closing sysop's judgment has a lot to do with it. It's all about the project. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read wrote I wrote carefully, you'll see that no accusations were made. I simply said that it's hard to assume good faith when someone nominated 10 Christian biographies for deletion in the same day. People can investigate and/or draw their own conclusions. --Jason Gastrich 20:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's extremely easy to assume good faith. All it means is that he found a list article, went through all the links and checked them. I've done the same thing many times. And the personal attack was, in any case, not the AG issue (I only said that was open to question); this [3] on the other hand is hard to interpret as anything else. And I think that's probably all I have to say on the matter at this point. Mind how you go, Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 21:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand how saying "To those that read (written for your amusement, of course)" may seem like a personal attack from an outsider. However, when I wrote "written for your amusement" it was as good as saying, "just joking." As an outsider, you may not know WarriorScribe (Dave Horn) but he has a long history of personally attacking me, so rest assured that a joke like mine pales in comparison to the things he has said and done.[4] --Jason Gastrich 21:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So sarcasm = just joking? OK, I was just joking with everything I've written on this page. Jim62sch 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You also understand that "he has probably written morre books than you have read" is the offensive text. Oh, and the para at the top of your user page violates WP:OWN and should be removed. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 00:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

While we are at this you may want to check out the concept of MPOV from wikimedia too. David D. (Talk) 01:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty fair description of JG's behaviour to me. Jim62sch 10:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, you may want to neutralize your arguments a bit to help in avoiding factionalism. Rather than saying "someone nominated 10 Christian biographies", consider approaching it as "someone nominated 10 related biographies" or even "someone nominated 10 related articles". The way you put it could be considered as assuming an anti-Christian bias rather than just questioning notability of the article's subjects. --StuffOfInterest 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you are showing good faith here, but he means what he says. You'll note he was also complaining "unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions" [5], despite the fact that several appear to be Christian. Its a shame since such rhetoric strains the wikipedian philosophy of collaboration . David D. (Talk) 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is also ironic as I'm an atheist and voted to keep most of them. :) --StuffOfInterest 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, many people, if not most try to be objective. Obviously this does not mean everyone agrees but to assume there are voting blocks is divisive. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad, very sad. Jason, this is directed at you. Don't fall victim to the sins you accuse others of. Us-vs-them will not help in life or Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest 21:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He already has, and will continue to do so. It's a very common refrain from Fundamentalists that those who disagree with them on anything are non-believers (I've never seen "unbeliever" used by anyone but Gastrich). A common refrain indeed -- in fact, it was similar thinking by another group of fundamentalists that lead to 9/11. (No, I'm not calling Gastrich a terrorist).

Another of Jason's tricks is to remove those comments from his talk page with which he does not agree. Obviously, in his biblical lessons he's never run across "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Based on his behaviour on Wiki, and a number of scams of his I've run across on the Internet, I'm beginning to wonder if Jason isn't just a bit of a fraud. Jim62sch 22:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions at AFD

Hi there, and a belated welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed a number of your articles on AFD today, and I wanted to let you know why in many cases I have voted to delete them.

Firstly, about the articles. Many of your articles are unverifiable outside of sources you control or sources directly associated with the person named in the article. Wikipedia does not accept articles about unverifiable matters, people, etc. If your articles have reputable, third-party sources I would encourage you to cite them on the relevant page(s).

Secondly, your own votes. I am not sure if you are aware of Wikipedia's AFD process, but you voted to Speedy Keep on a number of discussions where that vote was not valid. Please see Wikipedia:Speedy keep, specifically that to speedy keep, there can be no other delete votes whatsoever.

Thirdly, I note that you posted similar requests on User_talk:Hall Monitor, User_talk:Hvnhlpr, User_talk:SWD316, User_talk:God's child, User_talk:Michaelwmoss, User_talk:Yuckfoo, and User_talk:Jaysuschris asking them to support your other articles which are on AFD. You should be aware that this could be seen as meatpuppetry or vote stacking, and the closing administrator will be asked to take this into account when assessing the result of the AFD. Your article should be kept or deleted on its own merits, not on the basis of who can round up the most users to support them.

I wish you all the best. Stifle 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle. And nice to meet you. Thanks for clarifying the Speedy Keep. I suppose I used it incorrectly. Oops.

As for those talk pages, I said "Thanks for voicing your opinion on several of the Christian biographies that A.J.A. nominated for deletion, yesterday. Here are several others that could use your input." As you can see, I didn't ask them to "support" my articles. I just asked them to come and vote. --Jason Gastrich 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, if you are going to leave messages on Talk pages about AfD debates, doing that as web links rather than Wikilinks as you have been doing will prevent it showing up in "what links here" - which may well be interpreted as subterfuge. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know this, but I'll take it into consideration. In the meantime, I suggest to you that you should tone down your overall hostility toward me. --Jason Gastrich 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not confuse hostility towards abuse of the project with personal hostility. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I assumed that, in questioning my voting you were serious. So I explained my votes. And asked about yours. It seems only fair that if you requested an explanation for my voting that you should be willing to extend the same courtesy you asked of others, and explain your own actions. So, your reason for voting "Keep" on a whole slew of articles which fall short of the notability guidelines at WP:BIO would be... ? Guettarda 20:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I felt you avoided my question. However, since you want an answer, and since I asked you on your talk page, I'll go there and respond. There's no need to have a conversation in 2 places at once. --Jason Gastrich 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

Inclusionists do not vote to keep every article, and trying to create a bloc of voters is very much frowned upon. You should express your opinions and debate to convince others towards your view instead of trying to conjure up a majority of votes - there is no cabal. Please do not campaign and e-mail other users to try to get your articles kept, as this will likely backfire and get you into a lot of trouble. If you used the Inclusionist userboxes to do this, you may get into a lot of hot water as there recently was a significant debate about that. Again, please do not campaign for votes. Thank you. --AySz88^-^ 04:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I was really disappointed to see that after you were warned about soliciting votes with messages on talk pages, you decided to continue to solicit votes through a sneakier and less easily tracable method. I wanted to think better of you, and this puts a very bad taste in my mouth for advocating that some of your nominated articles be kept. -Colin Kimbrell 05:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong. All I've done is let some people know about the voting. I make anyone vote a certain way, but I feel that people have the right to know that there is a vote in progress. Consider me one of those people who walk around with a bunch of forms and ask people to register to vote. --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We work on debate and consensus, not voting. AfD is not a vote, and the polling mechanism is only to determine whether there is a consensus or general agreement. "Get out the vote" procedures are not appropriate in Wikipedia, so please don't do it. --AySz88^-^ 05:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you also sent messages to people with "Deletionist" or "Atheist" userboxes? No? Then you weren't impartial like a vote-registry worker, you were pushing a point and trying to game the system. It was dumb, it's counter-productive, and if you ever do it again it'll likely get you in serious trouble. Please don't do it, just let your articles stand or fall on their own merits. -Colin Kimbrell 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ay and Colin. I'll take it under consideration. God bless you, --Jason Gastrich 07:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And you as well. -Colin Kimbrell 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Talk Spam

It appears that you have been spamming Christian Wikipedians to tell them about the articles that are up for deletion. It also appears that you have been using sockpuppets. Both of these practicises are frowned upon on Wikipedia. Fortunately, I have assumed good faith and have infact voted on some of the articles. However, it might be useful to be a little more careful. The Neokid Talk 09:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Jason, removing comments from other editors simply because they may cast a bad light on your activities, or because you find them uncomfortable, is really not Kosher (as it were). In fact, the comments still exist in the log, so they are still available for anyone's reading pleasure, and removing them creates for you the appearance of a controlling person who fears reality. It also points to a very interesting contradiction: in spamming users in your get out the vote campaign, you act as if WP were a democracy, but in stifling the comments of others you act in the manner of a true totalitarian. (This also presents a rather delicious irony in that your user page lauds you as a great debater, yet you shy away from debate here.)

BTW: if you really believe that you worded your e-mail cleverly enough that no one but your Wiki4Christ friends would notice the bias and implied acceptable voting stance, you are seriously mistaken. Jim62sch 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, I would advise you to admit that you are Wiggie. You virtually did so on my talk page already. AvB ÷ talk 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Cut and Pasted from Itakes talk page Hi Itake, I hope you're well. I was reading your dialogue with User:Daycd and I have to say that you were right on the money. He can be a single-minded troll and you exposed him. Saying that LBU is a diploma mill exemplifies his POV and reveals that he probably isn't thinking in the best interest of Wikipedia. Keep in touch. I'd be happy to know you better, brother. Sincerely, --Jason Gastrich 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) None of these self-righteous tards have wikipedia's best interest at heart. They want to shape this encyclopedia to fit their own world views, and we shouldn't let them. Itake 14:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? The fact that either of you can attempt to criticize other people as being self-righteous tards is laughable. From what I have seen of you both, neither of you exhibits anything close to the behavior of Jesus Christ. Jesus reserved his strongest attacks for the Pharisees, believers who thought they had it all together, and he showed love and compassion to sinners. Not the other way around. Your behavior on WikiPedia, and in particular Jason's outside of WikiPedia is characteristic of "Pharisee" behavior and methods, not Christs behavior and methods. You should both be ashamed of yourselves for using our Lord's name in the manner that you do! Icj tlc 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need an objectivity lesson. And Itake needs a civility lesson judging from his attacks on the the deletion pages. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the use of retard above and in the deletion talk pages is in pretty poor taste. Its interesting whom you choose as your friends Jason. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, many are aware of this situation, and are watching. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LBU tweaking

You're welcome... mostly I do quirky stuff like "you're welcome" etc. to dissipate some stress and/or lighten the mood. I voted to keep Neal Weaver but it looks like most other pages will be deleted/merged. I'm certainly curious to see how that plays out, as I feel some people you have listed are notable within their community... but I'm unsure how much that matters for Wikipedia notability standards. Perhaps having a short sub-section in the LBU article will be the eventual compromise. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retaliatory AfDs

Jason, going around deleting articles in retaliation is not going to do anything but make you look like a fool, and damage the witness of Christian Wikipedians in general. Please stop. Justin Eiler 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I resent your accusation. --Jason Gastrich 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can handle being resented. It's happened before. But I made the above statement as my best analysis of your actions. Please, Jason--we're called to behave in a better fasion than this. Matt.5:39. Justin Eiler 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried pointing that out earlier. My comment was deleted. Be aware. Jim62sch 17:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. Those people are definitly not notable. Read their entries and see. --Jason Gastrich 04:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And you, my brother, are making excuses. (As a side note: yes, I've heard of several of these people within other contexts.) Please, Jason--we are not called to take revenge. Justin Eiler 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How dare you judge my heart without knowing it! --Jason Gastrich 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I judge your actions. "By their fruits will you know them."

Jason, this will be my last word on the subject: if you continue to act disruptively, I will request administrative action.

Justin Eiler 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, this charade is pathetic. He knows your heart only too well. David D. (Talk) 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

David, I know you quite well and you're a hard-core, partylining, card-carrying atheist, so I don't expect for you to see things objectively. However, honest Wikipedians will admit that many, if not all of those people are not notable. --Jason Gastrich 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Rom.12:[19] Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (KJV) Ruby 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason, I'm afraid you have misjudged the honest wikipedians. I suspect that most will turn against you. Your actions speak for themselves, I don't need to make a case agasint you since you are steadly building that case yourself. Actions speak louder than words. Also your POV is noted. If you can find one edit that shows I am anti-Christian I'll be happy to see it.

I have challenged you in the past because of your lack of objectivity NOT because of your Christianity. It is your problem with objectivity that does not allow you to see this, however, that other Christians are also questioning your actions should make it more obvious. Sadly you will ignore them, or worse, call them unbelievers. David D. (Talk) 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Please do not view Atheism as a bad trait, or accuse everybody who do not agree with your WP:POV as dishonest people. Sycthos ^Talk 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sycthos is right. While I personally think Atheism is illogical in the same way as Theism (I mean this in the true sense of logic's requiring of proofs), it is not bad, inherently or otherwise. I know a number of Atheists whose behaviour is more "Christian" than many Christians, and I know many Christians who are so full of hate that they discrace their relion. The latter applies to people of other religions as well, for, as I noted elsewhere, there is no opposite to Christianity and if there were it would most certainly not be atheism. (BTW, since I've been accused of being an atheist at least 10 times in the past three months, I should note that anyone who has the ability to read between the lines should be able to discern my real belief-structure now). Jim62sch 14:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Randomly nominating articles for deletion in an attempt to make a point is a violation of WP:POINT. I recommend you stop doing so in case your behaviour is construed as vandalism. Stifle 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retaliatory AfDs: Mediation Request

I have placed a request with the Mediation Comittee to help resolve this issue. Justin Eiler 05:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public . Private Confrontation

Jason, private confrontation is supposed to be done if a brother has sinned against me personally. Your actions have done me no harm as a person: instead, they've done harm to the community. And just as Simon Magus was confronted publically and "in community," so I chose to confront you in like manner. Justin Eiler 05:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Great first impression. Know what it did? Made me want to avoid you. Thanks for nothing. --Jason Gastrich 05:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt.18:[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (KJV) Ruby 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, more scripture hurling from people I do not know. I'm sure you know how unsettling that is. But we all think we're doing God's work, eh? Peace be with you. --Jason Gastrich 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ruby, this is not the proper passage for this situation. Jason has not caused me harm, and this passage deals specifically with a brother who sins "against you." Jason and I do not share a church, so we have no elders in common to discuss the situation. Justin Eiler 05:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Scripture hurling from people you don't know. Huh. Sounds like this guy I know that barged into alt.atheism one day swinging a bible at everybody in site. Mark K. Bilbo 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Mark, this is Teresita, used to swing by alt.atheism now and again. Ruby 06:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion?

You wrote: Guettarda has been anti-Gastrich since he first heard my name and religion. Well, based on your behaviour, I assume that you mean "obvious non-Christian masquerading as a Christian". Yeah, I find people like you, people who claim to be Christian but only use hate and attacks on people who disagree with you, people who dishonestly use sockpuppets and claim they aren't, people who relentlessly self-promote...and who give people who actually try to give those of us who try to live by what Jesus asked of us a bad name...yeah, I'm not very thrilled with people like that. And yes, since your attack on me on my user page I have learned that you are one of those kinds of people. But what your religion is, I can't tell from your behaviour. But it is bears no resemblance to what I know as Christianity. Guettarda 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the similarity your comment bears to one I wrote on this page, which was subsequerntly deleted by Gastrich, I am afraid that there is a good possibility that yours will be deleted, as well. Jim62sch 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, for some time, I have not supported the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I know plenty of people who will come and reply on that RfC page. Should they bother? If so, why? --Jason Gastrich 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be in your best interest to reply to the RfC. Ignoring it will be seen as a sign that you have no intention to follow the spirit of wikipedia rules. i assume that is not the message you wish to send? David D. (Talk) 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"I know plenty of people who will come and reply on that RfC page. Should they bother? If so, why? " If you control their actions to such an extent, then the answer is no - you should not use sockpuppets or meatpuppets to reply to an RFC which complains about your use of sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Simply put, if you have to ask on their behalf, then they are not members of the community in their own right. If they had been members of the community, and had decided on their own to comment, their input would have been most welcome. This comment, on the other hand, is an admission of the charges of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry against you. Guettarda 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. You need to look up the definitions of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. --Jason Gastrich 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to stop acting like a criminal lawyer and start looking at the spirit of the rules. You are behaving like Clinton, and I'm sure you had plenty of negative things to say about his creative definitions. Listen to the community, these rules are all guidelines and there are probably many loop holes if one really wants to game the system., And thats what it looks like when you keep saying i have done nothing wrong. There is an RfC where many established wikipedians are saying you have done something wrong. You really need to be a little more contrite and start trying to learn what is acceptable and work with the spirit of the rules. Are you listening to this? You should becuase it could be your only way out of the mess you have created for yourself. Many here can be sympathetic but you will lose that good faith if you keep digging in your heals. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting response. Not much contrition there I see (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jason_Gastrich#My_response). Note that most who are involved in your RfC have nothing to do with usenet. Their opinions are based solely on your behavior in wikipedia. Try some self reflection. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting remark on his part. If he's not engaging in meatpuppetry, what's that remark about? Is he admitting he has people waiting for him to give them a "go ahead" before they comment? Mark K. Bilbo 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the "people" you know are members of the community over whom you have no control, then the question makes no sense. If they are active in the community and can make up their own minds, then how can you speak for them? If they are not members of the community, then your bringing them here to support you is meatpuppetry or astroturfing, which is exactly one of the misdeeds of your that the RFC is trying to deal with. And, of course, if you actually control the accounts, they are sockpuppets. So, either your comment makes no sense (and thus, desperately needs clarification), or it is an admission of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Guettarda 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The definitions of sockpuppets and meatpuppets are clearly listed in WP:SOCK. It is prohibited that you use sockpuppets to create an illusion of broader support. Sycthos ^Talk 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of your AfD's

I voted to delete on many of the articles you nominated, but some of your nomination do not make sense. You nominated the former President of a country for deletion? What were you thinking?

Its quite reasonable of people to ask whether you are trying to violate WP:POINT. May I suggest you show some good faith by withdrawing the nomination for Joseph Lewis? See my comments on Joseph Lewis' AfD page. --Pierremenard 13:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nominating the former president of Angola was an accident. How can I withdraw that nomination? --Jason Gastrich 19:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply cross off your introductory nomination text with the <s> and </s> tags, comment that you withdrew the nomination and vote for a speedy keep. Sycthos ^Talk 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Accident? I don't think so! Jason, you owe WP editors a sincere apology for your deletion tirade. If you act responsibly going forward, most WP editors will deal with you fairly. What happens next is in your hands. --FloNight 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jason, you clearly nominated articles of Atheists for deletion. It would please many if you would admit that and your attempts at sockpuppetry on your RfC Response. Sycthos ^Talk 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I clearly nominated articles for deletion that don't deserve a place on Wikipedia. Let me ask you something. When User:A.J.A. nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion, in a 24 hour period, did you treat him like you're treating me? Since he did that, have you even approached him at all? Now you see why I'm not interested in "pleasing many" like yourself. I'm interested in using my valuable time to make Wikipedia a better place and I've already posted in the RfC. That will likely be my only post there. --Jason Gastrich 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The 12 Christian biographies were nominated for deletion to neutralize the level of self-promotion centered around Louisiana Baptist University. Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy, not a Christian or Athiest point of view. While I agree nominating some of the unpopular Athiest people was a correct move, nominating the President was not. I have major doubts on whether that was an accident. Sycthos ^Talk 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't nominate those entries, I appreciate your reply, but I certainly don't know if those are the nominator's feelings or not. I understand it is your opinion, though.

I didn't read the former president of Angola's bio closely enough and overlooked that part. If I would have seen it, I wouldn't have nominated it. This is why I returned today to cancel the nomination; and I wrote as much in the talk page.

Incidentally, many of the 12 Christian biographies will be kept because they are notable. It appears to me that some of them should have been quite obvious keepers; not unlike the president of Angola. --Jason Gastrich 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So the result is very little change to Wikipedia at a cost of a great deal of damage to the Body of Christ. This affair has been cause for scandal in the eyes of the unconverted. Ruby 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're thinking about the bottom line. This is an important thing to consider. However, I'm not sure I agree with you. Can you explain how and why you think the result "cost a great deal of damage to the Body of Christ?" I certainly don't see it that way.

If I had to "bottom line" it, I'd say a couple of Christian bios and a couple of the bios I nominated will be deleted and the rest will be kept. Here are a couple of other things that came out of this:

1. It revealed User:JzG and User:Cyde as people who care very little about Wikipedia and an honest vote. They tried to skew the voting by editing the very top of the nomination pages with their opinions and warnings.

2. It revealed that some have very little integrity. Everyone who said they voted one way simply because they doubted the "good faith" of the nomination should be seen as people of low character who do not put Wikipedia's interests first.

3. It revealed that some people openly violated Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith; and they got away with it.

4. It revealed that some people can launch personal attacks against others, and even institutions, with absolutely no recourse.

Those were some consequences of the happenings over the past few days. I believe that God uses all things for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. I'm sure there were plenty of other things that happened as well. To God be the glory. God bless, --Jason Gastrich 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget that all the things you describe here happened becuase of your actions. They are listed in the RfC. Yet you seem to blame everyone else for having an unreasonable resposne. Are you saying you are innocent of all wrong doing? The implication is that if you feel you are the harmed party and you will carry on editing in the same manner, ignoring the RfC. I am misunderstanding you? David D. (Talk) 05:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

David, you can read my post in the RfC if you want my input. I'm not impressed with your behavior on WP and I don't feel the need to reply to you. You have your agenda and try and play the middle by throwing the occasional bone, but I'm not fooled. You're just as partisan and to blame as anyone else. Plus, if you don't mind, please try and avoid responding to messages that aren't addressed to you. You have an annoying habit of doing this on my talk page and elsewhere. It's not very polite. --Jason Gastrich 05:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My trying to play the middle ground is the whole point of NPOV. Think about how it is supposed to work. I am partly to blame for your current mess? You need to think about your editing and how you can make more of an effort to be NPOV. This is not your web site so you must learn to adapt. David D. (Talk) 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has their shortcomings and issues. I'm simply giving you some advice about replying to posts that aren't directed to you; especially on my talk page. Please take a hint. I see through you and I'm not interested in chatting. --Jason Gastrich 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You see through me? You think I have an agenda other than correcting POV and deleting fluff? You have mentioned many times that I am anti-Christian. If that is what you think you see then you do not see through me at all. I have never been anti-Christian. I am anti-ignorance and anti-POV. David D. (Talk) 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

My, my. So every single person who questioned your motives is of "low character." I guess His Holiness has spoken. (This message will be deleted in 5.... 4.... 3....) Mark K. Bilbo 05:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not swearing (Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy) at me or calling me names this time. --Jason Gastrich 05:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You know where "vulgar" comes from? It meant "of the common people." The "vulgar tongue" was the speech of the commoners. As in the period when the English were ruled by the French Normans who conquered them. The Latinate "proper" side of English is actually French. That's why so many of our legal terms are French imports--it was the language of the rulers, the ones who made the laws. And that's why nobody can figure out the plural of "Attorney General" (it's "Attornies General" by the way, not to mention it's also "Courts Martial" not "Court Martials"). What was "vulgar" was Anglo-Saxon. What we now call "English." Every non-French, non-Latinate English word you use is a "vulgarity."

Unlike you, I'm not ashamed of my Saxon heritage. Which is ironic given that most of my heritage is Norman. Even my British blood is from Norman conquerors who stayed in England. So when you turn your nose up at "vulgarity" in a fit of Anglo-Saxon self-hatred, you are expressing a desire to be... me. Mark K. Bilbo 06:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (Notice the French last name? It's from the Norman immigrant Jacques who came to this country three centuries ago).

Once again, the boilerplate template {{afd-newbies}} was only placed to lessen the effect of "campaigning." Sycthos ^Talk 06:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Jason fails to understand that he does not own this space, and that anyone can post a comment on any topic on the page. Additionally his "I see through you and I'm not interested in chatting" and "I don't feel the need to reply to you" is reminiscent of "If you guys don't play the game my way, I'm going to take my marbles and go home". Quite distressing.

(This message will be deleted in 5.... 4.... 3....) (Sorry Mark, I just had to borrow this). Jim62sch 14:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Could you please stop blanking other users' comments on your talk page? As long as they are not blatant violations of WP:NPA (which this one you're trying to blank isn't), they need to stay. --Cyde Weys 00:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks won't be tolerated. Jim's admitted sarcasm was inappropriate, so it will be deleted. I've left many comments on this page, even though I am permitted to blank the whole talk page if I like. At any rate, I wrote Jim on his talk page and asked him to leave me alone as he has said a number of inappropriate things to hurt me and I'm tired of his abuse.. --Jason Gastrich 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Having been warned about blanking, damned if he didn't go do it again, removing the following:

You left TWO (2) comments on my user talk page (and both of them are still there) -- so, does this mean that two is many or that you are being disingenuous? As for saying things that hurt you, what were they and why did they hurt you? It also intrigues me why you think pointing out lessons from the Bible are abuse -- could it be that a raw nerve has been struck? Perhaps it's time for you to take a good long look in the mirror. Jim62sch 01:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume that what I posted was considered by Jason to be offensive (I'm not sure how) -- or maybe it hit too close to home. No doubt that this will be redeleted. Jim62sch 14:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment. He can blank anything he wants on his user talk page. It's his user talk page to do with as he sees fit.Gateman1997 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. He can (and he may), but it's considered bad form, poor etiquette and rather impolite. In addition, from a logical standpoint, removing those comments he finds objective is a tacit admission that they are correct. The better options are to just ignore them, or to rebut them (without the vitriole and personal attacks). Jim62sch 20:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The truth is, anyone can see the history anyway; archiving of user pages is convention not policy, but where user pages contain argument or contentious comment, blanking without archiving is always going to be viewed with suspicion. Neutrality deletes without archiving, but not, I think, when there is actual conversation (he simply remopves and does not reply to appeals for help etc., because as a member of arbcom he may be called to arbitrate later; he also gets a lot of Talk threads started). So there are good reasons for blanking. I don't see any in this case, mind, and Gastrich's view of what constitutes an attack does seem to vary according to whether he is making or receiving the comment. Of course it is not so much his talk page as the talk page attached to the user space assigned to his account (WP:OWN still applies). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The talk page is the wiki equivalent to an email inbox. I delete stuff from both regularly after the conversation has ended.Gateman1997 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. After. And WP conveniton is that you delete to an archive, though it is not a rule, especially where there is controversy. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, "after" would be the key word. Speaking of blanking, we have an anon from sunny south California (207.200.116.137 ) blanking things and inserting others in an apparent effort to improce the Gastrich aura. In fact, the pattern exhibited by 207.200.116.137 is very similar to that used by Wiggins2 and Gastrich. Could just be a coincidence, I'm sure. Jim62sch 10:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jason

I don't know you, nor have I read any of your articles. I stumbled on your user page through someone elses Talk page actually. While I'm not christian, (nonpracticing conservative jew myself), I'm sick of people on wikipedia demonizing anyone who believes in religion as a "psycho christian nut", or "idiot creationist" or whatever, and delete anything non-atheist as NPOV. Don't let them get you down. Swatjester 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I appreciate it. When it all comes down to it, they will always put me down, follow me around, and try and thwart my efforts. Fortunately, I will always have my Lord and Savior to comfort me and bless me and I'll always have open-minded, loving people like yourself that can see what's truly happening and act righteously. May you be blessed, --Jason Gastrich 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Thanks for the belly-laugh over at my talk page - that's the first time you've made me laugh so far! There's hope yet :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal for calm

I think it is time to tone down the rhetoric. And yes, I know I am an offender as well. I have warned some others who enjoy baiting you that it needs to stop, and I'm warning you, too, that the personal attacks and ascribing of motives need to stop. I did not block you for this [6] because I think it would have impeded the RfC in progress (another more experienced admin suggests I should have blocked you). Several administrators are now watching your actions and those of your known and suspected sockpuppets, some of these are likely to be much less reluctant than me to hit the "block user" button. This is nothing to do with you and everything to do with Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia is not a battleground. As I have said to others, it's all very well to trade blows on Usenet but that is not what Wikipedia is for. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia due to your continued participation on AFD and pov editing of contested articles despite the overwhelming community consensus seen at your RFC, admitted sockpuppetry and pending the outcome of the checkuser investigation regarding your other suspected sockpuppets. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. I have not used sockpuppets in months and I have done nothing wrong. It's awfully disingenuous of you to block me, then go vote on and edit entries I've been involved with.

Regards,

--Jason Gastrich 06:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add emphasis to FeloniousMonk's "despite the overwhelming community consensus seen at your RFC" statement. Wiggins2 is excellent evidence of the contrary to your reply. The AfD nominations for your articles have already expired before the block was issued, neutralizing your "you to block me, then go vote on and edit entries I've been involved with" statement. Your CheckUser request is still being processed, but there is a high level of consensus against your claims. SYCTHOS ^talk 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong on many accounts. First, "Wiggins2" isn't "proof" of anything. "Wiggins2" is a Wikipedia account. Next, you're wrong about the AfD nominations expiring before the block was issued.

Block: 05:39 UTC, 24 January

Robert Morey's AfD ended - 20:37 UTC, 24 January

Gastrich cannot even go and save a copy of the Morey entry because it was deleted during his ban by FeloniousMonk

Thomas Ice's AfD ended - 11:11 UTC, 24 January

FeloniousMonk used this ban as an opportunity to edit Ice's entry and make these comments: "Setting the record straight on the status of Gastrich's status vis-a-vis sockpuppetry"

Mike Randall's AfD ended - 11:19 UTC, 24 January

Chuck Missler's AfD - still in progress

Need I go on? What FeloniousMonk did was unethical and User:Itake has every right to seek the removal of his adminship for this and his other behavior.

Some of you can be wonderful fact checkers when you want to be. It's of no surprise that nobody checked these facts. Everyone has found time to jump on the witchhunt bandwagon, though.

As for the RfC, don't forget that there was a consensus in Nazi Germany, too. --207.200.116.137 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are Jason Gastrich, you can edit your own userpage when blocked, so please log in.

If you wish to argue for disregarding or for acting against consensus, please reconsider whether Wikipedia is the right place for you. Consensus is a fundamental basis of how Wikipedia functions. --AySz88 ^-^ 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So you deny you did anything wrong Jason? And we're all Nazi's persecuting you, Itake and Uncle Davey? David D. (Talk) 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

At first we were astheists, now we're Nazi's. Next I guess we'll all be Commies. And yes, given that 207.200.116.137 is an IP from sunny southern California, it is quite likely Jason (additionally, the syntactical structure of 207.200.116.137's comments is the same as that used by Wiggins2 and Gastrich). Jim62sch 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Godwin's Law. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 10:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah but everybody already is a bunch of commies. David James (aka "Uncle Davey") has already invoked the Soviet Union. (Something he invaribly does when he isn't getting his way.) Mark K. Bilbo 13:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

207.200.116.137 says "don't forget that there was a consensus in Nazi Germany, too"

First, no there wasn't, at least not according to wikipedia standards. See German election, November 1932 for records of the last free election in germany - note that the Nazi party received 33.6 % of the vote ( a plurality) that would hardly qualify for a consensus.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, criticism of consensus is misplaced here. Consensus is how wikipedia operates. If you do not like how wikipedia operates, you are free to start your own encyclopedia or leave comments advocating a change of policy at the talk page of Wikipedia:Consensus. --Pierremenard 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

I removed the following:

Please do not edit my user page for any reason.

Why not?

User pages aren't personal pages....everyone can edit them, its the Wikipedia way!! Mike _{(T C)}

06:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

from the top of the user page, the comment because it is a comment (which belongs here) and the "please do not edit" because it invites exactly that sort of comment, quite apart from violating WP:OWN. For information, to Jason and everyone else, a user page is generally recognised to be a place where the user gets to say what they want, and editing of user pages (apart from occasional random acts of vandalism) is usually left to the user and anyone making a constructive edit such as fixing a typo. This is spelled out in the Wiki guideline on user pages. The comment adds nothing substantive to normal practice and courtesy, and offends those with certain views about Wikiphilosophy. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gastrich, please see the last two items under deleting on Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. --Pierremenard 12:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the comment is a violation of WP:BEANS :) Stifle 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dia Duit

Hi there! If you're ever short of a few subjects to do, we'd be more than happy to see you at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. There's not that many of us, and we need all the help and opinions we can get. Cheers!Fergananim 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough is enough

Jason, I am an inclusionist, and I'm pretty sick of your actions. You email us asking for help keeping your articles around, and then you go out and try to delete notable articles about or by the people that nominated your articles for deletion. If someone nominates your articles for deletion, you should not just nominate theirs. We don't need delete wars going on here, they ruin it for the users. Wikipedia is NOT just a place for you to attack people you don't like. Manupulating inclusionists by asking for help is pretty lousy as well. The legal threats you love to spout are pretty crappy as well.

I know you probably get this all the time, but you are really giving Christians a bad name. I don't know what ~~the hell~~ is wrong with you, but step back from the wiki and the internet, and think for a while about how you are acting. Maybe read some of the Bible? You think it is inerrant, so maybe you should really sit down and read it. Treating people like pawns and acting like this isn't helping your reputation or that of your brothers. Calling yourself a Christian ~~at the same time as being an asshole also~~ makes the faith look bad. You may have brought some to the faith, but you have driven many away. I know you are going to delete this post, but please read it first. I'm not trying to attack you, but you need correction. Brokenfrog 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BF, I pointed that out once and Gastrich blanked my comments. Be aware, especially since 207.200.116.137 has been lurking on the page. Jim62sch 10:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you mean like this edit from 207.200.116.137? David D. (Talk) 10:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just like that. Funny, isn't it? Of course, Gastrich will deny all of it, but, we know better. Jim62sch 17:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If he is under a ban, notify an admin and get the IP blocked as a sockpuppet. Brokenfrog 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It will not work as he edits from an AOL account. David D. (Talk) 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, AOL does not have static IP's, they are shared among users (it's cheaper). In fact, that's a reason why I really wish Wiki would stop allowing anon edits. Jim62sch 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. (How's that from someone who doesn't even know if he's born again?) AvB ÷ talk 01:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a Christian and I have pointed out Jason's non-Christian behavior to him in the past and he ignores or deletes and has me blocked for "Vandalism" and personal attacks, but when he calls my Pastor/Dad that's "conflict resolution." Icj tlc 21:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, Jason feels that he's reached a state of grace unreachable by most of the rest of the world, thus any actions he takes are defensible as they are blessed by God. It's one of those "the end justifies the means" things. Jim62sch 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Show us not the aim without the way

For ends and means on earth are so entangled That changing one, you change the other too; Each different path brings other ends in view.70.225.175.108

Jason, how do you view your phone call to tlc's father&pastor in the light of the Biblical conflict resolution process? And in the light of the Wikipedian conflict resolution process? AvB ÷ talk 14:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Theater Albums

Just out of curiosity, why did you label all the Dream Theater Albums as Christian Rock. I know this was a while ago, but what made you think they were a Christian Rock band? Drlecter491 0:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

With lines like these, "I wanna feel your body breaking..." what else could they be? <-- sarcasm Jim62sch 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Jason do anything besides categorize everything under the Sun as Christian and write biographies on non-notable Christian figures and organizations? --Cyde Weys 17:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes he does. He also goes around and categorizes everything non-Christian as Atheist. He's also very good at "defending the faith" by attacking Atheist WikiPedians. Oh yeah, almost forgot...he's really good at deleting/altering comments that paint him in bad light! Icj tlc 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have him pegged. Jim62sch 13:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:AmericanIndian555.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AmericanIndian555.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:User Native American

Template:User Native American has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User Native American. Thank you.

[edit] Image:AmericanIndian555.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:AmericanIndian555.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Soothing R 15:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)