User talk:Former user 20/Archive2

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)

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)

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)

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

It would be better for all of us, Jason, if you would directly confront your opponent in a debate than to sneak your opinions to those who support you. Sycthos^Talk 23:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's more like it [1]. David D. (Talk) 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it from the millions to the tens of thousands after I realized my error. --Jason Gastrich 05:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Vote stacking

FeloniousMonk talked to you about vote-stacking. I'm going to echo that. You should also know that I consider that this [2] is also open to question, and this [3] 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 [4] 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.[5] --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" [6], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)