User talk:Former user 20/Archive

To my critics

This will not become a soap box for my critics. If you want to say negative things about me, you can do it on your own web site or somewhere else. Hateful things are subject to speedy deletion. Furthermore, continued vandalism will be reported and stopped.--Jason Gastrich 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links to userpages

Your user page is not an encyclopedia article. Links to it from encyclopedia articles are not appropriate. --Carnildo 04:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, my user page has only been linked from articles that are using my name. --Jason Gastrich 05:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. --Carnildo 08:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

Hello, I noticed this, and it seems like dunc is correct in assuming you are creating extra accounts to give the appearance of consensus on an issue where there may be none. Please stop using them. Karmafist 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist, thanks for your input. However, if you look closer, I'm certain you'll see exactly what Kelly (another admin) saw. I never used (and never will use) a sockpuppet to give the appearance of consensus on an issue. If you think I have, then please elaborate and I'll correct your error. I've taken active steps to avoid this because it would be against the rules and wouldn't be fair.
My reasons for using sockpuppets are valid. Several people hate me and they will continually delete any entries I make because I stand up for Protestant Christianity and its proponents. I've already seen censorship and such, so I'm not convinced that the opponents of Christianity on Wikipedia have the maturity to behave correctly. Recently, this has been illustrated by their vandalism on my user page. It has also been illustrated on other entries and other contributions of mine.--Jason Gastrich 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason, one who has the maturity issues that you so clearly do has no business presuming to lecture others, nor is your standard one anyone should aspire to. There's also no reason to believe your intent when it comes to using sock puppets, as your brazen lies have been exposed so often that "Gastrich is a liar" is almost axiomatic on the Internet, just as your sock puppets have clearly been designed to forward an illusion of concensus that favors you. It does seem that you regularly create a set of sock puppets or methods of "outside" support that are designed to fool people into thinking that there's anything more to you than you. Finally, your interpretation of the Wikipedia sock puppet rule is clearly strained and self-serving. I'm a bit of a newcomer into these controversies, but what I've read and seen so far makes it clear that you're nothing more than a con man who uses Christianity as a means of self-promotion, simply because you just don't seem to have any real skills or talents. It's a shame for you that arrogance and stupidity are no substitute for those things.
  - I love God more than anything. I also love people very much. My web site and my long-time and constant work for the Lord reflects my heart. The positive comments I receive via email affirm that my work isn't in vain and that you and people like you are in the minority.
    - We have what you say, and we see your actions. There is no love of God in you. There is only love of yourself. Your tendency to lie makes your claims about emails you've received nothing more than the sort of thing that songs have been written about, "the lurkers support me in email." Your words are worth nothing when your actions so clearly belie your words.
  - It's unfortunate that I'm misunderstood by my critics (this is putting it very nicely because it's more accurately stated as attempted character assassination solely by some non-Christian internet users), but God knows my heart and I'm much more concerned about what he thinks. Whether you are one of my better known critics or just someone who believes them, your "in my face" (and "behind my back") tactics of putting me down aren't doing you or your cause any good. I will never stop sharing the good news and bringing the light into the darkness. Since you and non-Christians like you started your campaign against me, my ministry has grown exponentially (and I give God all the glory for it).
    - I don't believe that you are misunderstood at all. On the contrary, I think you are understood all too well. Yes, God does know your heart, and judgement rests with Him; but your actions do not show glory to God, they show glory to yourself. You do not share good news, you simply play at it, all to inflate yourself before men, while minimizing yourself before God. Truly, you are one of those to whom God may turn from if you don't repent of your arrogant ways. Again, given your tendency to lie, there is no reason to believe in your claims to exponetial growth in your ministry. Indeed, all that you have done has shown your desperation, including your silly campaign to inflate yourself in these venues. You are a Pharisee and a fraud, as has been shown so many times. Furthermore, you are a coward, hiding behind phony degrees and self-bestowed titles, organizations, and "ministries," all so that you can feel important and "notable."
  - Nothing you or anyone else says can ever stop me. Even lies and hate groups and hate sites about me haven't done a single bit for the cause of unbelief because God is much bigger than you, your cohorts, and any plans you have made or will make.
    - God is certainly much bigger than all of us, but all men are liars, including you, yet you refuse to repent of it. You engage in lie after lie after lie, all in the alleged cause of God, but in the end, it's all for your own cause. No one will "stop" you, not because you are moved of God, but because you are moved by your own arrogance and pride.
  - Finally, believe me or don't believe me, but I use multiple accounts solely because my critics (e.g. people like you) would easily find every contribution and revert them immediately if you knew that I was making them.--Jason Gastrich 08:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't believe you because I observed your tactics first hand. I saw you use various characters in order to pretend that there was more support for you than there was. Your sock puppet use of third person references to you is the most significant clue. Your creation of these characters and that sort of language was intended to deceive, and as you have tried to do so often before, it simply exposes you as a liar. Spare me your excuses, your whining, and your prideful boasting. I am not impressed, and I truly believe that God is not impressed, either. You may make all the holy sounding noises you wish. They do nothing to dispell the lies you have told, the arrogance you have displayed, the pridefulness in which you indulge yourself. You can boast of the emails you have received, but all that we can determine from outside of your manufactured world is what we can see and the reactions you have generated. Those did not occur because you are a light to the world. They occur because of your hardened heart, hardened to your own pride.
    - And again you expose your pride, by use of the sock puppets so that your contributions may be posted. And you show your cowardice, afraid that your contributions may be criticized and rebutted as they have been so many times. You feel that your contributions should not be subject to scrutiny and criticism, as if *your* words are on a par with Scripture! You are a foolish, prideful boy, Jason Gastrich, who never grew up.

I also recommend using a single account. All you'll accomplish is making yourself look stupid, discredit yourself as an editor, and annoy people. Also, it is questionable to use your userpage as an advertisement for your business, I would recommend you reduce it to a simple link to your own or your business's homepage. dab (ᛏ) 22:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I have valid reasons. Read above and see Wiki's rules on sock puppets.--Jason Gastrich 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no valid reasons other than self-promotion. A Christian puts on the whole armor of God, and does not rely on subterfuges and deceptions like sock puppets. You are without excuse, and you are very far from God.

I also use socks as some hate me as well. I do not see anything wrong with socks on the web. Some only want to stalk and harass me, so my socks help protect me from people like Dave, Bilbo, Jeff, Winter and the others.

John, nobody cares. The "stalking" is a fantasy of yours, nothing more.Mark K. Bilbo 05:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saving On Asterisks

Jason, even if you never use them or claim never to use them, the fact that they are there is reason enough for others to look upon you with suspicion, and I don't think that's what you want from the sound of things. If feel as though people are stalking you, please let me know, but I'd like to ask you again to make it official that those accounts are off limits. I see you used the Big Lover account since last we talked, so please let others know if that's your primary account, or they all have to be blocked. Perhaps a small statement from you on the accounts you won't use from now on saying "I won't use this account, and I did not understand that this was inappropriate since I was a Newcomer." or something like that.Please respond on my talk page. If you continue using multiple accounts, I'll have to block them all. Karmafist 18:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been able to do anything about the constant vandalism on my user page. What should make me believe that you will or can do anything about those that are out to revert and remove every Christian-oriented contribution of mine?--Jason Gastrich 20:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet :

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users may wish to experience Wikipedia to understand how the community functions for those new to the community. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons. A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

Some users use alternate accounts for security reasons. Because public computers often have password-stealing trojans installed, users put themselves at risk if they log in on public computers using their main accounts.

Others might use different accounts in talk pages to avoid extending conflicts about a particular area of interest into conflicts based upon user identity. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

Multiple accounts also serve to protect identity. Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects. A person editing an article which is highly controversial within their social circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with WP:NPOV policy will not assume their information edits are statements of personal belief.

END QUOTE

Now, you have yet to explain or prove that I have used multiple accounts in bad faith. Your pressure for me to quit is unwarranted and frankly, against the Wikipedia rules.--Jason Gastrich 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith or not Jason, Socks are against policy on Wikipedia, and since you don't want to remove them, i'm blocking them indefinately for you, and if you make another one, i'll block any account you make in the future. Karmafist 04:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having never been involved in this article, and never having heard of either of you before, I came across this via a link. My response is simple and to the point:

I do not know if Jason Gastrich is indeed being vandalised and stalked on wikipedia or not, nor do I care much. Dispute resolution takes care of that. However, what is clear and not in doubt to me is that Karmafist could be more civil. Even if sock-puppets are discouraged, they are not in fact against policy so much as strongly discouraged. The current wording of WP:SOCK at least prima facie does not presently prohibit sock puppet use to avoid harrassment, so perhaps JG has had a reasonable and good-faith basis to believe that this use was permitted. Good faith should be assumed where possible, and a civil sympathetic tone adopted, even if a user is in fact in error, until bad faith is demonstrated. It seems that part of the problem was that WP:SOCK did not actually state what kelly Martin states, and as an official policy it is of course, what users will believe should be followed. With her input, perhaps the situation will now be resolved more amicably. (And for the record, I take back a previous comment regarding Karmafist's edit, having not read Kelly Martins reply beforehand. Apologies in retrospect for butting in, if they are needed, and see you round editing maybe) FT2 17:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok FT2, It's my opinion that the dispute resolution system on Wikipedia is fairly ineffective, so i'm trying to be a bit more proactive here. It doesn't seem like Jason has malicious intent with the socks, but regardless, socks are socks. Karmafist 20:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is using socks as creations of 'personalities' that are designed to show support that isn't there, or if they are being used to minimize, marginalize, misrepresent, or even silence critics who have valid things to say, I'd call that 'malicious intent.'

Sockery

Jason,

In response to your request on my user talk page, I am afraid you misinterpreted my comments on the administrator noticeboard. Your use of sockpuppets is not "correct and proper". Wikipedia, by policy, discourages the use of sockpuppets. However, we tolerate the use of sockpuppets in limited situations where an appropriate purpose exists for their use. I am afraid that I do not believe that your intended purpose is an appropriate use of sockpuppets, and I further believe that your use of sockpuppets is beginning to become disruptive to Wikipedia.

The reason I made the statement that I did is that I am specially empowered with the ability to investigate from what IP address(es) a particular editor has been using to edit Wikipedia. (I am only of only six editors on the English Wikipedia with this level of access to the system.) I did such an investigation in your case based on the request made on the administrator noticeboard. I have, in fact, documented that you are using a significant number of sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia. However, my ability to take action on that information is restricted; the situations in which I can act on this information are limited and your conduct has not yet, in my opinion, reached the level where administrative action on my part is required. While it is my opinion that your conduct is not becoming of a Wikipedian, and I would prefer that you desist in your use of multiple sockpuppets, your conduct has also not yet reached the level where I am willing to breach your privacy by publicly revealing the names of all of your sockpuppets, take any formal administrative action to terminate your use of sockpuppets (or your access to Wikipedia), or recommend to anyone else that they do so. It is, however, getting very close to that level.

I am aware that my word carries a great deal of weight on Wikipedia, and I do not want my words to be misinterpreted. While the use of sockpuppets is occasionally tolerated by policy, your conduct is beginning to become offensive and disruptive. You are strongly advised to consider whether your current course of conduct is in harmony with your long-term interests at Wikipedia and with Wikipedia's mission.

Sincerely, Kelly Martin (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This makes it much more clear. Thank you.

Unfortunately, this will all but drive me from Wikipedia (just as my critics and opponents want). I can't spend a lot of time in revert wars and such and that is exactly what will happen when I do all contribs through one user name. This can already be seen today in the Microevolution entry. Duncharris went there via the Jason Gastrich user account and edited a perfectly reasonable contribution for no reason at all (except for his known and documented bias against me, Christianity, young earth creation, etc.). So, if I stay on Wiki and obey your rules, how can things like this be avoided? Or should I just conclude that it will be a constant, lifetime battle to get reasonable contributions to stay online?--Jason Gastrich 22:18, 23 November 2005

Jason,

Revert warring is not the solution to any problem on Wikipedia. Please follow our dispute resolution policies to resolve your dispute. If you are being unreasonably hounded by other editors, those editors are violating Wikipedia's policy, and will be made to stop. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, If you add reasonable information then no one will revert your edits. In the case you mention above (your primrose edit to the microevolution page) there is good reason to question if polyploidy is a good example of microevolution. Many would argue it is an example of macroevolution. It would be better to stick to less controversial examples. Another point, since duncharris has edited the microevolution page before there is a very good chance he has it on his watchlist. I don't think you have reason to believe he stalked you to that page. I suspect if he had not reverted your edit another editor would have questioned it too. David D. (Talk) 23:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About half of angiosperm (flowering plant) species seem to have originated this way. Brine shrimp, weevils, bagworm moths, and flies may have arisen this way. It's only his opinion that the primrose plant is a bad example. Doesn't it take more than one's opinion to maintain an edit?--Jason Gastrich 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, it's microevolution. It is happening at and below the species level. --Jason Gastrich 23:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the microevolution talk page, I think we are talking at cross purposes. I thought you were talking about the allotetraploid example in Primula, that IS a new species. But I now realise you are talking about the genetic variation seen in Oenothera (not a primrose, by the way, despite its common name Evening Primrose) and that is a valid example of microevolution. By the way, I think it is redundant to write that people who are pro-evolution accept microevolution, which was another aspect of that edit that was changed. David D. (Talk) 23:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, David. At least we're closer to being on the same page now. Pun intended.--Jason Gastrich 23:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, please respond on my talk page if you need assistance in fear threats from critics or as a third opinion in looking at any potential disputes, sockpuppetry and revert warring is not the way. (UTC)Karmafist 17:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primroses

See talk:Microevolution#Primrose

Please provide a citation for that.

I humbly suggest that I know about more biology than you. Your edits did not make sense. — Dunc|☺ 22:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'll revert your edit and put it right on the Microevolution page.

--Jason Gastrich 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

page protection

Would you like your userpage temp vprotected? «»Who ?¿?^meta 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. It might as well be protected for as long as possible. Thanks for offering.

--Jason Gastrich 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, just ask me or another admin to unprotect it when you are ready. Cheers. «»Who ?¿?^meta 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jason Gastrich 23:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- ISTM that we have a peculiar idea about "vandalism," checking the Wiki page on the matter, the definition doesn't seem to include "adding information pertinent to the issue that someone else may not like."

Socks

Lately, more and more, I've seen the value of using a single user account. Even though I had been seeking (and waiting for) a 3rd party admin to exhort me on my use of socks, I've deleted the conversation. I'll be using my main user account for the vast majority of my posts. If I ever do decide to use a sock, some time down the road, I'll make sure to use them very sparingly and within the Wiki rules.--Jason Gastrich 23:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason , congratulations on this decision, I think you will be taken a lot more seriously by other users without the socks. David D. (Talk) 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason: Am I correct in thinking this issue is over, and if so, can I remove your request from the mediation page? If not, let me know. For the record, the general take on sockpuppets is: yes, they are fine for use in any way which makes organizing your work easier, such as having different account for editing different topics. However (as I'm sure you know), they may never be used for ballot stuffing, getting around 3RR, increasing the size of a consensus, and so on. As a general rule, you should assume that sock puppets are fine so long as more than one account never edits the same page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 00:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Asbestos. Thanks.--Jason Gastrich 18:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jpegs

(I removed some trolling for you Jason), but can you upload photographs in jpeg format please? They're more compressed. pngs are best for diagrams. — Dunc|☺ 14:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the trolling. That's always appreciated.

I know which pic you're talking about. I tried a number of things with it. However, when I converted it to .jpg, it was fuzzy, so I figured Wiki would want a crisp .png picture over a fuzzy .jpg one. I will try and use jpegs in the future as long as they look good. Is that how Wiki would want it? --Jason Gastrich 18:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Jason, I've noticed that you're removing other people's comments from this page. This is inappropriate. Please read Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. In particular, note that: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Jakew 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake. You have an interesting bit about circumcision on your user page. It's hard to believe that people would vandalize such an entry (and get away with it).
I've been the target of lots and lots of vandalism on Wiki. You can see this in the history of my talk and user pages. Both have had to be locked and the user page remains locked. I've had to make it clear that I would not tolerate such abuse. According to the rules, there are a number of allowances for deleting things. So far, my deletions have been acceptable. This has also been the unanimous consensus of the users and admins who have deleted the vandalism/trolling. Nonetheless, I'll be careful to brush up on the rules (I just did) and stay within them. Thanks for your concern. --Jason Gastrich 19:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that the user page is yours, and other people shouldn't touch it, while the user talk page is for communicating with others. I'm sorry that you've had trouble with vandals.

I make an exception to the normal rule on my user page, and invite comments or criticism. I really don't mind. What's the old saying? "That which doesn't kill me can only make me stronger," as I recall. Jakew 20:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your ...whatever it is

I've received your message, and frankly I have no clue as to what you are talking about. The "antics" link seems to lead nowhere; none of the stuff there even relates remotely to myself in any way. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, the situation is unchanged. Reply to the criticisms. It's quite simple. And don't leave any more messages that are irrelevant and don't make sense. It's a waste of ppl's time. --DanielCD 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you wrote this here, I posted a message to you on the Talk:The Skeptic's Annotated Bible page and a link to it on your talk page. I've responded to you on the SAB talk page.

--Jason Gastrich 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

Hello Jason. I started a discussion on the notability of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible itself, and it has now been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I think your input would be of value.

Though I may come across as a crab, my interests are really on how the info is presented in Wikipedia and in being as fair as I can. Perhaps I fail in this sometimes; I have to continually force myself to remember usernames represent a person and not just an inanimate word. But honestly, I am not the DanielCD of the Usenet group; it is just a coincidence. I try to sign on to things often with this name and am told that the username is already taken.

Anyhow, I've voted, and I'm taking the "Skeptics Bible" off my watchlist. Good luck with your endeavors at Wikipedia. --DanielCD 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I wrote the above before I saw the apology at the article's talk page. Things are getting pretty scrambled there and it's hard to see new additions. Just FYI. --DanielCD 15:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Daniel. Take care. --Jason Gastrich 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some general stuff

Hello Jason. I think a Christian group might be a good idea. It would have to be a common interest-peer group though, and not an "edit war faction" (for lack of a better term). I have looked about a bit, and thought you might benefit from talking to some of the users at WikiChristian. They might be able to provide some mentoring and sympathetic ears.

Now, I'm not trying to provide you with a bulldog or anything; and am not trying to provide people to help push edits. I just think some like-minded people with some experience with wiki-world tact and savvy might help. I am assuming, as I always try to do, that you are here at Wikipedia in good faith. --DanielCD 15:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. Good to hear from ya. Thanks for your link to wikichristian.org. Previously, I had only known of one other Christian wiki and it was MUCH smaller.
My goal isn't to make or join a small, Christian wiki board. I actually have the means to create and host one if I wanted. However, I want to find the Christians who are posting here and those that wish to post here and make a club. It should be a fun network of friends. By the way, are you a believer in Christ? God bless, Jason. P.S. Of course, I only have legitimate and honest intentions! You can see my contribution history if you have any doubts. I enjoy Wiki and I like to contribute good edits and even new entries. --Jason Gastrich 19:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I'm not sure if you read my last message, but in the meantime, I launched Wiki 4 Christ - a network of Christian Wikipedia contributors. This is what I was referring to above. God bless, Jason --Jason Gastrich 07:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a believer, Protestant. But unfortunately I don't think we'd see eye-to-eye on many things. But that's OK, ppl don't have to agree on everything.

I trust you've seen all the fuss in the news about Wikipedia? Might make you feel a little more at home to know there is conflict all over the place; ye'r not alone... Things like Bias, Accountability, and Authority will always be debated, and that's a lot of what Wikipedia is, the interaction. Put two ppl in a room, and they'll find something to disagree about. Toughens your skin a bit and really helps you define what you believe.

Anyway, call on me if you need a third opinion (but please try not to pull me into any edit wars, and be aware I may disagree with you). And good luck with your new site. I think it's wonderful. Cheers! --DanielCD 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving your talk page

Jason,

Most people move their user talk pages to a subpage e.g. user talk:Jason Gastrich/Archive1 so older discussions are kept properly. Then break out a new talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jason_Gastrich&redirect=no It's not too important, just a little bit of wikiquette since some might take your intentions the wrong way if you delete passages. — Dunc|☺ 11:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dunc. I think I'd prefer to use the history link on the discussion tab as my archive.--Jason Gastrich 18:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion link

There are a few different reasons why I removed the link to your site that you inserted on the Abortion article.

This is your own personal research, and not somebody else's, as to both what the bible says about abortion, and which scriptures are relevant to the discussion.. See: WP:NOR and WP:NOT for why this is problematic. For more research on the (rather complex) subject of religion and abortion, there's diverse views available at: http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/ethics/abortion/religionandabortion.html
The Abortion article clearly cannot have all possible links to the different religious views on the topic, as the article would rapidly be swamped by advocates.
Religion_and_abortion might be a somewhat better location for adding your link (or instead adding the more comprehensive above external link, which comes from that article's talk page), because as the Abortion article states (in the comments):"Help keep this article short and simple: resist adding more links to "biased" section. Add them to whichever sub-article would be appropriate instead. Thanks!"

You had also asked what I would do if somebody else had inserted the link (which could also have similar issues)... if a link was inserted out to a notable site on the subject, which offered comprehensive information, I might have let it stand, but the existing site being linked to doesn't even cover the massive range of evangelical christian belief, scripture, and exegisis on the relevant topic, let alone interpretations of other groups that use various biblical texts and scriptures as their source.

Perhaps the best long-term solution would be to make a new page (or group of pages) off of Religion and abortion, to contain the various discussions about religious texts and their varying interpretations on the matter (I'm guessing you're aware that a whole article could be formed merely around the Exodus 21:22-23 controversies that have formed over the years, as the hebrew and septuagint versions offer contradictory interpretations). Ronabop 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Abuse

If you also have legitimate grievances against Duncharris, it might be best if we work together. Duncharris has said, "I welcome you reporting me because I'll be vindicated" and "Please report my "admin abuse'." I'm willing to call his bluff. How does one go about filing for admin abuse? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wade. He has reverted many of my contributions; generally without a stated reason. His areas of interest are skepticism, atheism, and evolution. I believe his reverts where in Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Macroevolution, Microevolution, etc.--Jason Gastrich 22:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because both of you have earned a place on the POV patrol watchlist. Also Wade, with your history of disruption, I caution you now against fanning the flames here and inciting further distruption. Given your history, you're likely to be hoisted by your own petard. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to this POV watchlist? If I'm really on it, it sounds suspect. I'll gladly add some people to it. I've battled quite a bit to keep entries nPOV and if you look at my contributions, then you'll realize it.

It's a shame you can't address the issue at hand. You apparently have some issues, yourself. Each and every accusation and situation should be weighed by its own merit; regardless of anyone's (alleged) past. To ignore what someone says because you didn't like something they previously said is making a blind judgment; quite unwise. --Jason Gastrich 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every person has their own pov watchlist, so to speak. You've earned your place on mine, as has Wade. FeloniousMonk 06:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, be that as it may, you haven't reverted one of my (many) contributions for a long time. I suppose I'll let that fact speak for itself. I guess I'll start a list and put you on it; just for good measure. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Now, back to the issue at hand: Dunc's potential admin abuse. --Jason Gastrich 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with an admin, you may want to bring it up with them first, there are several 'next steps' but you may want to start with an RfC. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) covers some material that you might read. The convention on Wikipedia for headings is to use "sentence case" - only capitalize the first word and any proper nouns. Even though I've been editing here for a while I still re-read some of those guidelines. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, FeloniousMonk 18:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. FeloniousMonk 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Faith and rationality needs to be cleaned up for nPOV isn't a personal attack. This issue has been brought up for mediation. We'll let them decide, but I'm QUITE certain it will be discussed and changed to conform with nPOV guidelines. You deleting the neutrality dispute tag AND deleting the neutrality dispute discussion is wrong. I know it's your baby and you created/expanded it, but Wiki doesn't allow people to do what you're doing.--Jason Gastrich 19:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious attacks are what is in question here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not that thick, so don't waste your time and mine. Repeatedly saying other editors are wrong or biased because they're atheists is by definition of a personal attack. You can stop doing that either the easy way or the hard way. You've been warned and now it's up to you. FeloniousMonk 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the issue would be discussed and it is. I launched no personal attack. I merely said that your POV that comes through in the entry could be because of your belief in atheism. I would warn you not to delete serious neutrality disputes, but it looks like you've learned that lesson already. --Jason Gastrich 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"your POV that comes through in the entry could be because of your belief in atheism"

You're skating on very thin ice Jason. What editors do or do not believe in is not relevant to the article, and therefore off-limits as a topic except in the most egregious cases of POV pushing. FeloniousMonk 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I think your belief and adherence to atheism effects your writing on faith and rationality. You're an outspoken atheist on the internet and I've read the article that you wrote. It's not horrible, but can be improved to meet nPOV standards. That's my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, I don't know what to tell you. --Jason Gastrich 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what to say to this... this is one of the most blatant religious attacks I have ever seen from a registered user, and you think by calling it your "opinion" that somehow makes it acceptable? Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, retract that accusation, and apologize to FeloniousMonk. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he's trolling us while ignoring the WP:NPA warnings. I'm not going to take his bait. FeloniousMonk 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to interject. I don't want to get involved, but thought I might invite ya'll to take a breather. This seems to be ramping up in intensity and I don't want to see anyone get blocked. I noticed the discussion because I have Jason's page on my watchlist so I can watch it for vandalism. Try to take it easy and good luck. --DanielCD 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about deleting the comments of others

Do not delete the comments of others from talk pages. FeloniousMonk 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. FeloniousMonk 07:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably know, I've made a lot of contributions and some reverts, lately. You'll need to tell me which entry you're talking about. --Jason Gastrich 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response: Faith and rationality

I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeremiah

Wow, what a surprise to see his name pop up! My brother and he are close friends; Dave's a terrific guy and a worthy addition to Wikipedia. In fact, I was considering adding an article on him myself. Great call! Merry Christmas, BTW. :) - Lucky 6.9 21:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He pastors my home church in El Cajon and he's a fantastic guy. I'm going to add to the entry, soon. Merry Christmas! --Jason Gastrich 21:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. In fact, I'll be seeing my brother soon. I'll try and get some more biographical info. Dave used to live up in Hesperia and he and my brother have been friends since well before he hit big. As I recall, he's also done some video game voiceovers, including a major Star Wars release a few years ago. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Christianity Portal!

Hi Jason, it is great to see your interest in the Christianity Portal and your contributions to it thus far. Feel free to make comments and suggestions on articles, people and images to feature on the page. I hope you had a Merry Christmas! Brisvegas 06:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I applaud you for creating such a portal. I'm happy to contribute and help in any way I can. I'm very interested in making sure Christianity is fairly and generously represented on Wikipedia. I've also launched a special ministry to this end and it's called Wiki 4 Christ. God bless, Jason Gastrich 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Izehar 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I try and do this, but sometimes I'm in a hurry and forget. --Jason Gastrich 19:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Our warning template about spam says:

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

In that spirit, it would be best if you did not add links to your own websites, even when they are informative. If they are useful than other editors will add them. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Have you considered having your userpage semi-protected. It is currently under full protection, so you currently can't edit it. If it were semi-protected, you would be able to edit it. Only anon IPs and users with accounts less than four days old wouldn't be able to edit it. If you want semi-protection, tell me. Izehar 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush categories

Please see Talk:Laura_Bush#Religious_categories regarding your category additions to the Laura Bush article. Wasted Time R 14:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to Phillip Johnson being a religious leader objection i had. I think you need to be careful not to use these categories too loosely otherwise their usefulness will be diluted. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Robertson article

I can see how you might be right but I can also see how I might be right.

any idea how we can find a middle ground?

grazon 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there was another word, but I can't remember it now . . . any proposals?--Jason Gastrich 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critcism vs impeding. I think it is clear that Roberston means criticism of the war. His quote is "I know we have an opportunity to express our points of view, but there is a time when we're engaged in a combat situation that carping criticism against the commander in chief just doesn't cut it.". Of course, he may also think that criticism is impeding the war but I find it hard to understand his logic if that is the case. David D. (Talk) 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but I think he slightly backed off in that sentence. This is his sentence about treason: "And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason." Undermining isn't synonymous with criticism. I think impeding works perfectly because that's his point (whether I agree with it or not); those that get in the way (which is all impeding means) are causing treason. Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duh on me. The word I forgot was undermining. Let's just use that word. It's what Robertson used. Can't go wrong there. --Jason Gastrich 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

uhhhh and what of the "carping criticism" statement jason?

grazon 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict with grazon who makes same point) What does he mean by undermine? As far as i can tell he is only refering to criticism since his subsequent sentence only refers to "carping critiscism". With respect to the supposed freedom of speech in the U.S. there is no way that 'criticism' can be equated with 'undermine', as he seems to do. Since I have not heard his comments in context i could be missing something, is there something else? David D. (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty and simplicity of it. By using his own words, we don't have to know what exactly he meant. We can just report what he said and let others decide. Keep in mind, too, that this is just the title. The entire quotation is left intact. And it does seem like there may be more to it . . . but it still probably wouldn't change the way we should proceed because we need to forge a title about treason from the statement about treason. --Jason Gastrich 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that Robertson in the past has; claimed Joe Lieberman wants to destroy all Christians called for assassination of Hugo Chávez and then lied claiming he never did. and claimed various Protestant Demominations are controled by the anti-christ yet had no problem voting for members of that church.

I see know reason why he wouldn't call criticism of Bush treason.

grazon 00:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The way you rewrote the title looks fine. It's all-inclusive and reveals the ambiguous nature of the statement. As for the other things you mentioned, Robertson has a tough job. He feels he has to stand up to sin and proclaim the Word of God, but at the same time, he has critics that can and will use anything against him. I know how small things and even nothing can be exaggerated out of control; not to say he shouldn't be held accountable, though. --Jason Gastrich 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to say that sort of thing when he hasn't said anything to offend you.

Try imagining what it's like to hear him say your kind as can be, ultra Christian, Republican grandparents worship the anti-christ.

grazon 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but absurd statements about me or ones I love never really bother me. Why? Because they're absurd. Feel free to continue if you want, but I agree. There is no reason to argue. --Jason Gastrich 04:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I suggest we nd this dialong now before we start to argue.

grazon 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Help

An amusing fellow who is also an admin. is refusing to let Ed Gein be added to the category of LGBT serial killers.

Jason Gastrich

My apologies to all of you on behalf of christians everywhere. It is christian's like Gastrich that make the rest of us ashamed to be known by that distinction. Personally I stopped calling myself a christian a long time ago, I've called myself a follower of Christ for quite a few years now. I am actively involved in the ministry (and I don't mean a web-based ministry) and it shames me and hurts me deeply to see the rhetoric and judgemental-ism that Gastrich is passing off as characteristics of Christianity. If any of you are trying to find the truth of Christ, please don't pay any attention to any edits by Jason Gastrich, he gives GOOD Christians a BAD name. --Icj tlc 17:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater albums

The Dream Theater albums are Progressive Rock or more specifically Progressive Metal Albums. Regardless of their individual religions, which they do not overtly promote in any way, thier music is not Christian in any way. Although some of their music is spiritual, or has a spiritual message, it's is in no way overtly Christian, and can be mainly attributed to Mike Portnoy's (the drummer's) battle with alcoholism, and his recovery in the 12 step program. This is being put into song with steps 1 through 7 having been written in the songs "The Glass Prison", "This Dying Soul" and "The Root of all Evil" and 8 through 12 having yet to be written. Thank you pointing out to me that I did not put down that they are Progressive Metal albums, and I will correct my mistake. --User:Drlecter491 18:23, 31 December 2005 (EST)

mediation

I am the Cabal Mediator. Can you please look if you can both find a compromise solution. It will be best if you can find together a solution. Deadline tomorrow 2 january 2006, hour 21 UTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Mark_K._Bilbo -- Bonaparte talk 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonaparte. Thanks for your help with this issue. I wrote a second paragraph and called it Suggestion #2. The first paragraph was a little longer and more inclusive, but either one should suffice. --Jason Gastrich 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop already Jason. You are making the rest of us Christians look bad. You should really seek God in this matter, and ask yourself the all mighty question, "What Would Jesus Do?" I have no doubt that this will be deleted, but you should really be looking to the master, not your own desires here. Icj tlc 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what? I'm simply following admin Bonaparte's ruling and adding necessary info to an entry.

I see you want to give me Christian instruction, but I have seen nothing Christian from you. Can you please tell me about your faith, what Christ means to you, your conversion, and your success in ministry? These are things I like to know from people when they tell me they are a brother in Christ. All I do know is that you were suspended for 24 hours for vandalism and personal attacks on my talk page. Please let me know a bit more about you (e.g. past, present, ministry, personal info, etc.). You can start with your name. --Jason Gastrich 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Jason.

There is no "Admin" Bonaparte, as has already been pointed out. Bonaparte is a mediator, not an Admin.
NO WHERE did I say I wanted to give you Christian instruction, you are like one of the pharisees that believe they know everything and therefore cannot be instructed.
My faith is my faith. That's not up for public speculation or debate by people that consider themselves "ministers" because they have a website.
I highly doubt that you want to know my personal info because I am a brother in Christ. You are trying to bait me into an argument as you have done so many times with other people. It's not going to work.
I posted no vandalism or personal attacks on your talk page, I merely appologized to everyone you have offended in the name of Christ. In your contorted little mind, you viewed this as a personal attack and ran to an admin. In case you haven't noticed 2 of your "enemies" (WarriorScribe and myself) have recently reverted true vandalism of your talk page by User Bible John.
If you really want personal information from me, look at my user page. My name and email address have been on there since the day I created my account. (Which reminds me, your email address is no where to be found, if I want to email you, I have to follow a link to your website.) Also you can find my credentials here...[www.tlc-rocks.org]

As I said before Jason, I don't believe WikiPedia should be used as a platform for ANYONE (including myself) to preach there beliefs, you can use WikiChristian or that other little wiki you've started for that. If you want to continue this, I recommend you email me as I will not respond to any more of your messages either here or on my talk page. Yours in Christ. Icj tlc 13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, you asked me a question, to which I have responded. If your just going to delete my response, why bother asking? I guess expecting common courtesy and maturity about this from you was a little naive on my part. Icj tlc 22:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From user talk:Icj_tlc Note for Jason Gastrich I can be reached via email at Icj_tlc@hotmail.com

I read your message. Stop reposting it in my talk page. Based on your childish behavior and treatment of me, at this time, I have no desire to talk to you via email. --Jason Gastrich 22:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's what "Jesus would do." WarriorScribe 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And call his church and tell them about his behavior. This man has filed a mediation request to get me kicked off Wikipedia, so yeah, at this time, I don't want to talk to him. I will talk to his head pastor, though. --Jason Gastrich 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jason, you might want to take a good look at my name and my head pastor's name, don't they look a little familiar. That's right he's my father and I highly doubt he will agree with you. Especially on doctrine. As far as we are concerned, Jesus came to heal, not hurt, which is all you can seem to do. I never filed a request to get you kicked off of Wikipedia, I have reccomended that you be permanently banned, but haven't figured out how to request it yet. Maybe I should look under WikiNusance or WikiBigot or WikiNazi. Icj tlc 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's funny. I don't know you at all and all I keep asking you to do is leave me alone. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but if you didn't want me to avoid you, then you shouldn't be acting the way you've been acting. --Jason Gastrich 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have a responsibilty to Christ to make sure that you are not the image people have of him! PS. When did you ask me to leave you alone? And as far as the way people are acting, who keeps deleting other people's comments, your comments are right there on my page so everyone can see what a fool you are. Icj tlc 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

Hello Jason,

I still believe that you can contribute to the article in which was asked for mediation Mark K. Bilbo. So now, I think is up to you to make also compromise since on the talk page there is already a solution of compromise. You should be aware that not reaching now the compromise will lead to escalation and eventually even worst situations. I suggest you that you can avoid all this by simply proposing in such a manner that you can convince the other side that's worth to be mentioned in the article. I wish you success. Bonaparte talk 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there is no compromise. There is only deletion. If you are truly a Cabal mediator interested in helping, then I suggest you do something to help. Several people have ignored your ruling/suggestion in the matter. You seemingly don't care. Now, I'd appreciate it if you either recommended the matter go to formal mediation or you step in and let your voice be heard regarding the compromise. The people involved, I know them too well, are not interested in compromise. They are only interested in pardoning one of their own because they have the same vice as he. --Jason Gastrich 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I'm not an atheist, I don't suffer from their vice. You are a nusance and you need to be stopped. The good thing is, is that all your really doing, is making more and more people keep their eye on you. Your time here is short. Icj tlc 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention please

If you attempt to contact my church or father again, you will be brought up on harrasment charges. Please stop. If you feel that you are right in our debates, take it to an administrator, but your attempts to harras me, my church, or my family will not be tolerated. Icj tlc 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You publicly claimed to be a pastor at Life Church in Sacramento and you personally gave me a link to your church's web site. Before and after, you've been acting like a complete jerk. Furthermore, you've never said or done anything that I've heard or seen that could be considered Christian. But you have done the following: vandalized my talk page (and you were banned for 24 hours from an admin for it), engaged in personal attacks, harassed me for wanting the truth on the Mark K. Bilbo entry, emailed me rude things, etc.

These are things that your pastor (your Dad, now I find) need to know. No pastor should ever act like you do. You're not a vigilante. You're not doing God's work. You are doing nothing, whatsoever, besides eating a little of my time.

Whoever you answer to needs to know what you are doing and they need to reprimand you; and they will. In fact, your pastor/father called me, today. I don't suppose you'll listen to me, but I do suppose you'll listen to your spiritual overseer.

Please do not contact me, again. As I said before, since you've been trying to get me thrown off Wikipedia - before and after that futile attempt - I have never, ever seen or heard one thing from you that could make me think you are a brother in Christ or even a person of integrity. In fact, from the little I know you, I cannot find even one redeeming quality. You seem to be wasting time and space and getting in the way of my efforts to further the cause of Christ. Therefore, it's best that you stay away from me until you can shine Christ's light through you; instead of hate. If you can repent to God and seek forgiveness, then you can email me. Until that time, we have nothing in common.

If you still want to threaten me (e.g. you saying above "your time is short"), consider "WarriorScribe" (Dave Horn). He has been trolling me and trying to hurt me and my ministry for quite awhile. What good has it done? I'll sum it up right here: he has been able to revert 3 Wikipedia entries and encourage 3 unbelievers in their desire to reject God and me.

In the meantime, since he began his quest, by the grace and blessing of God and my Savior Jesus Christ, jcsm.org has grown by nearly 100,000 web pages, our yearly income has doubled from 2004 to 2005, our subscribers for the weekly devotions have increased by about 5 people every day, we've launched wiki4christ.com, believeandrepent.com, yecs.org, macsd.org, skepticsannotatedbible.org, etc. I've been faithful with JCSM's weekly devotions, devos.jcsm.org text and ada.jcsm.org audio, I've launched the nljonline.org National Life Journal], and on and on and on. So, "WarriorScribe"/Dave Horn (who will be trolling me, reading, and replying here any minute), Icj tlc, and anyone else who doesn't like me, rest assured that your efforts to troll me and spread hate and slander against me have only done what those sorts of things have always done and will always do: fueled me to stay up later, to work even harder, and to do everything I possibly can to further the cause of Christ into this hungry world. As you were, guys. And by the way, thanks. I'm not sure if I would have been motivated enough to do it all without you. Glory to God for what He has done, what He is doing, and what He will do. --Jason Gastrich 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is...

Gastrich, you tried to intimidate someone who opposes your views in an attempt to influence the content of the Wikipedia. What you did was wrong. It's that simple. Mark K. Bilbo 15:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. I take the title "pastor" very seriously. If someone wants to wear that title and relentlessly harass me and my ministry efforts, then their spiritual overseer needs to be contacted. Plain and simple. Perhaps you don't know that he vandalized my talk page, got banned for 24 hours for personally attacking me and said vandalism, has left me insulting emails, and has launched an attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. All for what? Apparently, all because I think the Mark K. Bilbo entry should include the truth about his liberal use of profanity, name calling, personal attacks, and mockery when it comes to his interaction with others. He's obviously an awfully misdirected fellow and his pastor gave him wise advice. He said, "Leave Jason Gastrich alone." You may not realize it, but mature, spiritual overseers actually appreciate it when they have the opportunity to correct one of their "proteges" who are failing to meet a Christ-like ideal. --Jason Gastrich 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Jason, you are lying. I never claimed to be "The" pastor of anything. I said I was a youth pastor on my user page and in my posts else where I have said minister. Once again, I did not vandalize your page, I posted an apology for your actions on behalf of Christians. Once again, Jason, you are lying. My father did not advise me in the manner you're suggesting, you left out the part about him laughing at you. He said, "Leave that guy alone, he's trouble!" Stop Lying Jason. That is a sin. If you were a minister you would know that. It's true I did receive a 24 hour ban. One of which I'm proud, I actually boast about it on my user page. I haven't denied it once, nor have I deleted any of your posts from my talk page as you have repeatedly done to my posts on your page. Icj tlc 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try it Gastrich, you harrassed him. And you know quite well that you and I have a history and this is all about ax grinding because you don't like me. It's that simple. Being I'm the subject of the article, I was trying to keep some distance from this but when you took it to the level of harrassing someone offline to get your way in your childish axe grinding campaign, well, I'm involved now. The article will not be your little platform for launching your immature attacks on me. If the Wiki allows that, I will get that article ripped out of here. Period. Mark K. Bilbo 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich, can you please just leave the Mark K. Bilbo page alone? It's not very important (no offense to Mark). The amount of effort being wasted on this page could instead be expended to make other pages a lot better. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde. Thanks for your input. However, a compromise seems much more wise and appropriate than nothing at all. Your opinion is as worthwhile as theirs. Will you contribute to the compromise? Don't let it take up too much of your time and I won't let it take up too much of mine. Deal? P.S. Please feel free to call me Jason. --Jason Gastrich 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one week edit pause

Stay cool. Don't make any edit on page one week.

You see that you are reaching very fast the compromise. One week edit pause. Any other future edit will be on the talk page posted and I will watch it first. See you in one week. Bonaparte talk 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. I hope we meet a virtuous compromise. Please help contribute to it. You are one person that everyone should respect as objective. --Jason Gastrich 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

final decision

Please see talk page for final decision from the Cabal Mediator. Bonaparte talk 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets

No, this isn't a threat. I'm just letting you know I added the bullet "This Wikipedian is a Christian" and the category "Christian Wikipedians" to your user page. I hope you don't mind. You should explore Wikipedian categories. I've got several on my talk page. Harvestdancer 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jason Gastrich 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rock

I'm not the anon user that made all those changes, but I think he or she was trying to remove those contemporary Christian music artists that shouldn't be described as "rock". Jpers36 00:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpers36. Nice to meet you. I've spent a lot of time on the Christian rock entry and the artists that are listed can be considered Christian rock. There might be a couple that are marginal, but as a rule, I didn't include any gospel, rap, or hip hop artists. The ones that were included fit the entry. God bless, Jason --Jason Gastrich 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kiel and Christians in Entertainment

Hello; I believe you added the Christian Actors Category to Richard Kiel. I wondered if you were aware there was a bit of an edit war over it.I've already reverted back twice in favor of the category. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Kiel&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Kiel

Also I was wondering if you might be interested in this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:List_of_Christian_Entertainers --California 12 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the RK page.They were level headed and got the point across.I am shocked at how anti-Christian bias is rearing it's ugly head at wikipedia.Are there any areas where Christians at wiki are speaking out about this? Take a look at the intro on this page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_christians Look at this sentence "Croaking along in it's own righteousness?" What a shame that people need to use a supposedly neutral internet site to spread their prejudice.

--California 12 12:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarriorScribe's deceit and poor personal research

While occasionally poorly worded WarriorScribe's perspective isn't merely held by him and his friends. Since LBU is unaccredited its entirely reasonable to question the academic credentials they bestow. I'm uncertain how WS & friends being in a minority or LBU statistics changes that. The entry indeed does not define LBU as a dimploma mill, but rather states "some assert" it is. Of course there is good reason to object to that as its a weasle term, and indeed no verified source is cited. And yes, I agree the actual criteria should be mentioned. Please make further suggestions on the article talk page... I appreciate you would like to correspond with me, but my talk page just turns into another battleground; which is okay, but little is accomplished and the discussion gets fragmented... which is not okay. cc'd to article talk page. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal headings

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally address headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. -Will Beback 06:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I didn't know this was a rule. Thanks for letting me know. RoyBoy has addressed me on the LBU talk page, so I went to his talk page and addressed him there. However, he moved my response to the LBU talk page. This is why I addressed him with a heading on the LBU talk page. I'm happy to comply with the rule, though.

By the way, what is your opinion on whether or not LBU is a diploma mill? It seems that you have been following the conversation without giving your opinion on the talk page.

--Jason Gastrich 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusionists

I doubt whether yuckfoo cares about them being Christian entries. He consistently votes to keep everything. You could use that to your advantage. They are known as inclusionists. David D. (Talk) 06:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Gastrich needs to stop accusing people of things and try to understand the Wiki camps of inclusionists and deletionists). Mark K. Bilbo 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason I've voted on 2, but I'm just to tired to finish tonight. I'll visit the others tomorrow. I must say the swarm of deletions is weird.Did he have an argument with you on any talk pages before this started? If so you need to include that in your vandalism report, it would show his motivation.This is very important. California 12 02:14 18 January 2006(UTC)

Thanks California. According to his posts, he has a problem with fundamentalist Christianity. He has only been on Wikipedia (with "A.J.A.") for about 3 weeks. He could even be a sockpuppet. Who knows. --Jason Gastrich 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do? A.J.A. 22:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, you may want to correct these edits, they are clearly not an accurate reflection of the number of times they are cited on the web. 17 million hits in google and 11 million hits in google. David D. (Talk) 10:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason do you want to ask someone from the mediation cabal if it would be permissible to merge the articles that are deleted into the LBU article? This may be your best shot for the lesser known people and the LBU list. California 12 02:58 18 January 2006(UTC)

I should add this, I seriously doubt if they are going to count my vote anyway California 12 03:34 18 January 2006(UTC)

I see no reason why your vote would not be counted, why would you think this? By the way you are still not using the four tildes (~~~~) to sign your talk posts. If you are going to write your signature long hand it should look like this [[User:California12|California 12]] not like this [[California12|California 12]]. David D. (Talk) 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using google

Please cite accurate numbers for google searches in the future. I've looked through a series of your recent contribution on AfD pages, and all the google search numbers you cite are wildly inflated. You say, for example, that Thomas Ice googles to over 17 million hits, but the answer is in fact around 40,000.

When you google for

Thomas Ice

you are getting all page that include the words "Thomas" and "Ice." For example, if google registers the sentence "Thomas went to the ice machine," it would come up as a hit when googled as above. Please use quotes, as in

"Thomas Ice"

to count occurences of exact phrase. --Pierremenard 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Jason Gastrich 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting

It is frowned upon to recruit other users to AfD pages when your own intersts are at stake. You may want to be less obvious about it since it will go against you when the admin closes the Afd. Already it does not look good with complete strangers to wiki voting to keep. These types of voters are termed meatpuppets. You need to get a consensus of like minded wikipedians together whom might vote favourably from your own perspective. David D. (Talk) 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about me I have been here since April 2004. California12 18 January 2006

No not yourself. Heavens Helper, Gods Child and Michaelmoss have about 20 edits between them. Their votes will not be counted in the AfD. David D. (Talk) 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your input, but because of some of the posts you've made, I doubt that your heart is in the right place. At any rate, my desire is to bring Christian Wikipedians here to contribute. I would never encourage someone only to vote and leave. By the way, there are a number of complete strangers to Wiki that have voted to delete. Will you be giving them an exhortation?

FYI - Heaven's Helper, Michael Moss, and God's Child are my friends. Although they may not have posted much so far, you can rest assured that they will be contributing more and more to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really think my heart is not in the right place? Did i not welcome Michael and direct him to Christian music pages that might interest him? As far as other recent editors voting in the Afd you can be sure their deletes will also be excluded. i did not check thos though. Why don't ou write a note on the appropriate ones to help the closing admin sort the good votes from the bad votes. I am not encouraging your friends to leave i am merely pointing out the reality that their input in Afd will ot be taken seriously until they have shown a constructive input into the project. We disagree on most issues but I am certainly not out to get you or your friends. David D. (Talk) 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. And Daycd is right, skewing AFD votes with buddies is by definition an act of bad faith. This bears more watching. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Of course ignoring "Judge not, lest ye be judged" would seem to me to be a violation of good faith on a number ofg levels. WWJD? Jim62sch 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we are our brother's keepers. We all depend on the process of Wikipedia:consensus to arrive at decisions about content. That is why we can't allow activities which skew the consensus. These include sock puppets, meat puppets, and participants who have been recruited to Wikipedia only to support a particular position. Asking active, potentially-interested editors to look at an article or AfD is acceptable, though even there restraint is expected. Frequent or widespread requests might be viewed as spam or worse. Let's all just try to be agreeable. This isn't the Usenet-- we have a project to work on. Cheers, -Will Beback 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is meant to represent the community's views, not the best organized, coordinated subset of it. FeloniousMonk 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed the rules in avoiding "sock puppets, meat puppets, and participants who have been recruited to Wikipedia only to support a particular position." As you can see here, my desire is to get people to come here, stay, and be regular contributors to Wikipedia. I've also encouraged existing users to vote and to participate. As far as I can tell, these things are not against Wiki's rules. In fact, they all seem to be encouraged in the spirit of making a successful and prosperous Wiki. But by all means, watch away. --Jason Gastrich 04:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followed the rules eh? And what about jcsm.org/Online/WeeklyDevotions437.htm this? You blatantly tried to astroturf (aka "meatpuppet") the AfD for your vanity article. And publicly "thanked" the people who you asked to come here solely to vote to support you. Why shouldn't people suspect you of doing what you've done before? Mark K. Bilbo 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your extensive prior experience on AfD, you should know by now that inviting friends to register on Wikipedia and vote as soon as they arrive will never reflect well on you or them. Making selective quotations and ignoring the spirit in favour of the letter is apparently your day job, but it won't work here and you won't convince anyone that WP:SOCK means what you think it means and not what everyone else thinks it means.

Meatpuppetry not only disrupts our attempts to work by consensus, but it's unfair on your 'friends' because it casts all their subsequent contributions in a suspicious light. If you're really that concerned about getting people to contribute here, then think more about what they might do for Wikipedia and less about what they might do for you. --Malthusian (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I just saw all the above. You made your own bed here and if you really think my advice is so bad carry right on. But you will get into more problems if you just carry on without trying to fit in. David D. (Talk) 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent Meat Puppetry

I received an email from Jason Gastrich, a listing which has led me to be more involved in the wiki project. I post the entire email here if it might influence the discussion on vote stacking:

Dear Subscribers,

I hope you're well.

If you've been on JCSM's list for awhile, you know that I don't like to bother you with unimportant things. The devotions are succinct and focused. The midweek messages let you know about important new ministries. Similarly, this message is to let you know about something important as well.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that you can edit! It's currently listed in the top 40 most popular sites on the internet. Its articles frequently get listed in the top 10 search results in Google. The web site has been featured in newspapers and on television.

Several weeks ago, JCSM noticed this trend and created a new ministry called Wiki4Christ. It's an organization that exists to make sure Christians have a united and represented voice on Wikipedia. As you may imagine, unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions; especially Christian biographies! This is where we need you, now. (personal emphasis added)

Yesterday, the entries below were nominated for deletion. This means there will be a vote on whether or not to keep them. Please come and let your voice be heard! This endeavor will only take 10-15 minutes and it will be something you can do with your online time that will further the kingdom of God. Wouldn't you like to vote to keep Christian entries on Wikipedia? (personal emphasis added)

How do you do this? First, you need a Wikipedia account. You can create a free one and it only takes seconds. Go to http://en.wikipedia.com. In the upper right corner, you'll see a link called "Sign in / create account." Click it. Next, all you have to do is create a Username and password. It's that simple!

Afterwards, click the links below, click "Edit" and simply add your vote at the bottom of the page, using the same format as the others. If you have any questions, please let me know. This is important, so I would be happy to walk you through it if you have any trouble.

Here is a list of the entries that need your help. They're all Christian people; some are presidents of Christian universities, others are authors, professors, and scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Baker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

If you'd like to be a part of Wiki4Christ, and be notified of future ways you can help, please fill out the form at Wiki4Christ.

May God richly bless you.

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich

If this is what is frowned upon for articles for deletion standing on their own merits and not who can scrub up enough votes, I would agree.

Jazzscrub 21:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence borders on paranoia "unbelievers also edit there and they actively try to silence Christian input and revert our contributions". First, I suspect that not all people voting to "revert Christian input" are "unbelievers". I challenge Jason to offer evidence for a single case of "Christian input", that is both notable and NPOV, being successfully reverted by a unbelievers. I have only seen non-notable edits and POV edits from Christians being reverted. This is not a conspiracy since we all know that the "unblievers" who post POV and non notable contributions are also reverted. Please stop trying to provoke trouble. David D. (Talk) 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Gastrich is astroturfing the AfD votes. What a surprise (not). Mark K. Bilbo 21:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is frowned on. See: WP:SOCK. The summary ("policy in a nutshell") states:

"Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone, either." (emphasis mine)

Note particularly WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22

Mark K. Bilbo 21:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Does Jesus really save Ministries? Read Eats, Shoots and Leaves and you'll get the point. Jim62sch 22:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? "an atheist Bible commentary". Jim62sch 22:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts without Minds, or other way about?

Who are you to judge? WWJD?

"::I want to thank you for your input, but because of some of the posts you've made, I doubt that your heart is in the right place. "

Jim62sch 22:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I see you've made a number of personal attacks at AFD. You've been warned previously about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Taken with your recent campaigning to stack votes at AFD, this consistutes a pattern of bad faith. You'd be wise to step back and let things cool down and run their natural course. If you continue as you have you may be blocked for disruption. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very good Christian is Mr. Gastrich, eh? One wonders, WWJD? Jim62sch 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely delete all your comments from his talk page ;-) David D. (Talk) 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, reversion as a tool of salvation. What a concept. Jim62sch 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Yes, many of us are watching. Jim62sch 20:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and Pasted from User_talk:User talk:JzGs talk page in reference to -Colin Kimbrell

I just wanted you to know that your anti-Christian bias has been noted and you are being watched. --Jason Gastrich 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim62sch 20:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Cut and Pasted fromUser_talk:A.J.A.#Your_comments In fact, I have more guts than you know. I also see you as small potatoes, though. Certainly part of the problem, but small potatoes because anybody can nominate an article for deletion. I've assumed that you are a (misdirected) believer in Christ. Who else would nominate 12 Christian biography entries for deletion? Who else would attack a Christian institution, over 1000 students, and thousands of graduates by calling their school a diploma mill (even though they attend on campus classes, go to school for many years, and work hard to earn their degrees)? I can tell you with certainty that over half a dozen unbelievers have voted to delete. The ones who dislike Christianity and me (and they generally troll me and roll in packs) have come out of the woodwork. I hope you're happy with the side you've taken and the people you've pleased. I haven't been able to find how God could possibly be glorified by your actions. Have you? --Jason Gastrich 07:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Christ-like of you, Jason. It is fools like you who have turned so many people away from Christianity -- hatred and intolerance was not part of the original message. You sicken me. I just hope that not too many youngsters get drawn into your web of hatred, arrogance and deceit.

Your comments

I was going to let your comments stay on my talk page for awhile until you began attacking me. If you do it again, you'll be reported and I've dealt with people like you before and they will ban you for 24 hours. --Jason Gastrich 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No attack, my man, just truth, and given your track record I doubt you would have allowed the comments to stay on your talk page. I find it rather ironic that you seem to think you can cast aspersions on the faith of others, or that you can belittle someone as being "small potatoes", but when your own flaws are pointed out, you remove them from your page and then resort to silly, inane threats. As for "I've dealt with people like you before", precisely what kind of people would they be? Oh, I forgot, in looking over your editing history, you're unlikely to answer that question.

Another item I find ironic is the assertion on your page that you are a skilled debater, and yet, as noted before (no doubt you took this as an attack) you shy away from any debate you cannot control. Rather than threaten me regarding perceived slights, you could have tried to rebut what I said, thus opening an opportunity to engage in real debate on serious issues.

Also, perhaps it might be wise for you to recall the teachings of Jesus, who noted, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." This might be a good lesson-of-the-day for you to consider before you decide to proceed in the manner in which you have been proceeding thus far. Jim62sch 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins2

Click the link and learn [1] Jim62sch 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]