User talk:Former user 20/Archive2

A few words
The above is quite a shame. A handful of unbelievers and anti-fundamentalist Christians have led a brigade of hatred. What am I guilty of? Well, the long and short of it is: creating a number of Christian entries and nominating a number of non-notable, atheist entries for deletion. Does that sound worthy of the above? Of course not.

The sockpuppet allegations are absurd. What was the result of the "check user" (which checks IP addresses)? Last time I checked, there was no word at all. Therefore, all of these sockpuppet allegations are assumptions by people like User:JzG and User:Arbustoo. What's worse, they've assumed that they were right while indefinitely blocking people's accounts for no other reason.

You're hated for Christian fundamentalism and your burning bias to silence me and like-minded contributors has made you a person that we cannot deal with. It's completely up to them, but I imagine they will use other accounts to post because they don't want to talk to you.

It's simply detestable how you have hijacked certain entries like LBU and Pacific International University. You rather have no information on there than actually have pertinent and good information posted by a fundamentalist Christian. It's a sad day when an admin like you and some of your unbelieving, Christian-hating friends can rule Wikipedia and the Christian entries in it. It seems like you are in cahoots with people like Arbustoo because you revert fundamentalist Christian entries and allow his, on the same entries. What made him the final word on Wikipedia entries? Perhaps he's a sock puppet of yours.

I'm going to avoid Wikipedia for awhile. However, I am going to encourage everyone I know to continue contributing. Therefore, don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them.

May God have mercy on your soul, Guy. --Jason Gastrich 07:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jason Gastrich, your comments are pointless. Why come back to continue this misery for yourself and others? Hope you can find peace of mind and join the community one day. --FloNight 07:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny how it's all somebody else's fault. The fifty-odd Wikipedians who endorsed the RfC are all biased, the people who innsert provable facts you don't like into articles are all biased, the people you insult are all biased, but you see yourself as whiter than snow.  As Bertrand Russell said, "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser men so full of doubts".  And I have absolute confidence that you, in your hubris, will read that as meaning that we are the fools and fanatics and you the "wiser men". As to hate, not me.  I am supremely indifferent to you, but I am absolutely not indifferent to your attempts to hijack Wikipedia for the greater glory of Gastrich.
 * This does, however, highlight the absolute refusal to acknowledge any fault whatsoever which led to the RfC in the first place, and led to it being so strongly endorsed. A smart man would learn from this. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To put this in language Jason might understand, "(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." Jim62sch 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so lurkers and newbies know, Jim is an unbeliever who has rejected the lordship of Christ, yet likes to use Bible verses to try and belittle His followers. --Jason Gastrich 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, I signed my name on the RfC, but it was solely regarding your violations of Wikipedia rules. If you think I have any sort of grudge against Christians, I invite you to read Talk:Answers in Genesis.  The mentorship program would be a good idea if you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia.  There are many ways to raise awareness about your faith within the policies of Wikipedia.  Step outside those boundaries too many times and consequences must follow - not because anyone hates your religion, but because believers of other religions would manipulate your example as an excuse to violate the rules in the name of their own faiths. Durova 08:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason would rather make asinine assumptions about people he does not know, rather than to learn anything. In addition, his apparent belief that Christianity is the only "true" religion will never allow him to be any more than a disruptive source on Wikipedia.  Jim62sch 16:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Civility. Durova 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? While tu quoque is not necessarily considered a valid defense, you might want to read the comment to which I was replying.  Jim62sch 18:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim's comments were civil enough, particularly considering the level of intolerance found on this page. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never known a person who was led to greater wisdom by being called "asinine." That has an undertone of baiting - hitting a guy while he's down - and posting to his own user page magnifies the insult.  I disapprove of Mr. Gastrich's conduct probably as strongly as either of you, which makes it especially important to demonstrate the right standard. Durova 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never known of a person who was led to greater wisdom when he believes that he already possesses the requisite amount of wisdom to be unassailable. Jim62sch 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User page links
The Wikipedia page that states what we can have on our user pages clearly mentions that we can have "useful links". See here. Therefore, I'm going to revert JzG's deletion, so my useful links may be on there. --Jason Gastrich 07:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Reverting. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 09:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WP is NOT a place to put your personal website. Have a link to it, but not a million. Your userpage reads like a giaganitc advertisement currently. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have seen it before I removed most of them! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Unequally yoked
I'm so yoked up at the moment, can't believe how yoked I am. NQR Help me out buddy!!!! If I was an egg who am I really? All the saturated fats are in the yolk, but that's the part that tastes the best.......WHAT DO I DO!

Over the past 4-6 weeks, the Holy Spirit has continually reminded of the scriptures that command Christians to avoid being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Of course, they aren't just referring to marriage, but to relationships.

In the coming days, I'll be writing some articles on the problems with Wikipedia, but for now, I'd like Christians to consider how working closely with unbelievers to create entries on Wikipedia could be considered being unequally yoked. Here is a link to a Bible lesson I wrote on this topic. www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/UnequallyYoked.htm --Jason Gastrich 06:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a free country, so I can't stop you from writing these articles (off Wikipedia, of course), but I would like to suggest that you don't waste your time. You came here, you violated policies, you were warned to stop, you didn't, and then you were issued an ultimatum.  Don't go complain to your followers or whatever on your site; nobody likes a whiner.  Just get over it.  -- Cyde Weys  06:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for witnessing and promoting your ministry/business. I'd ask you to read and abide by WP:NOT if I didn't already know that you'd just ignore the policy and continue on treating the project as your private ministry. If you're unwilling or unable to tolerate those here who do not share your faith you may find CreationWiki better suited to your agenda. FeloniousMonk 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, simply cannot wait to read these articles. No doubt, Jason will be portrayed as a victim of atheist persecution, Wikipedia as a den of iniquity and certain editors as minions of Satan.


 * And, Jason, I wouldn't want to be yoked to one so biased, hypocritical, hateful, spiteful, disingenuous even if it meant I could be saved from drowning in a vat of boiling oil. One last thing: I was raised by Christians, your behaviour, young man, has been, in my eyes at least, un-Christian. Jim62sch 16:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay  Talk •  Contact, Chairman, 12:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Incoming arbitration
Your presence is formally requested at your arbitration. Thank you. -- Cyde Weys 18:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already said all I need to say. --Jason Gastrich 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just informing you of this RFAr as is required by the rules. -- Cyde Weys  23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving my talk page
I'm not interested in archiving my talk page. I think I've made this abundantly clear. It's against Wikipedia's rules to require me to do so or to continually post links to an archive on this talk page. Please refrain from doing so, as this is a form of harrassment. --Jason Gastrich 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have made it clear that you don't want one. Your talk page, unlike your user page, is not owned by you.  You are forgetting the RfC, and the upcoming RfA.  It's not harrassment, so be honest about it. Harvestdancer 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Jason, you don't "own" the talk page. You don't "own" any page on Wikipedia. The only thing you own is the actual text that you write--and by posting it here at Wikipedia. you've engaged in a legal agreement to license your text to Wikipedia. By trying to delete the talk pages, you are interfering with copyrighted text that other people own, thereby violating not only Wikipedia rules, but copyright law.


 * Get. Off. Your. High. Horse. I am sick and tired of trying to witness to people and spending all of my time explaining "No, Christians aren't all self-glorifying idiots, but we're all human, so some Christians have problems with pride and stubbornness." Justin Eiler 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Legal and Christian issues aside, removing warnings from your talk page is a form of vandalism and if repeated will get you blocked (again) without having to wait for the RfAR. --Malthusian (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved comment from Talk:FeloniousMonk
Trolling me again, eh? And telling User:Chuck Hastings he is guilty until proven innocent? Over-stepping our bounds again, aren't we? --Jason Gastrich 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your own missteps that have caused your issue here, evidenced by the fact that there's a specific corner of Requests for CheckUser dedicated to you and your imaginary friends. Given your extensive history of sockpuppeting here, you'll find that not many here are willing to assume good faith on your part any longer. FeloniousMonk 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Hastings user page claimed he's from Australia. I'm willing to bet his IP isn't an Australian one, but rather similiar to a Jason Gastrich IP. Arbustoo 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

An offer to help
Jason, I see you are currently facing some controversy. I extend to you an offer of talk page chat, to help to you find an acceptable bible-based reason to avoid conflict here. I believe that by moderating your approach, you can remain faithful to your mission, while at the same time avoiding getting kicked off wikipedia. Adjusting your methods is what Paul was referring to when he spoke of "be[ing] all things to all people, so that [he] might by all means, win some". Best wishes. Merecat 07:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi John. I probably won't post at the arbitration page. Why? I don't really see a need for arbitration, since I'm only rarely posting on Wikipedia.


 * It has been brought to my attention that someone has been spoofing me, my ministry, Wiki4Christ, etc. and I've been getting blamed for it. This person is not me, however, and I haven't instructed anyone to act this way. In fact, I disagree with his tactics and I think he should stop and begin contributing to the community in a more positive way.


 * I do not know who has been spoofing me. However, I have a strong feeling it's a guy named John Wolf. He has been harrassing me and my ministry for some time, now. He first found me on Usenet.


 * I see Wikipedia as a place that is unfair and hostile to fundamentalist Christianity. I also see working closely with unbelievers as unbiblical. Therefore, I have been considering the removal of the Wiki4Christ ministry; or at least publishing a page that gives one strong pause before engaging the community here. God bless, --Jason Gastrich 06:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are confusing intolerance for aggressive pushing of a non-neutral point of view, with intolerance of the point of view itself. Guy 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be correct. I hold no intolerance of any religion; however, I will not tolerate an adherent of any religion attempting to ram their religious views down my throat.
 * Also, have any proof on the "spoof" allegation? Is it related to all of the other instances in which "it wasn't me" has been raised as a defence?  Jim62sch 17:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

More Socks?
THIS, and THIS are both growing. I'm still trying to help, so listen - don't create sock puppets if you want to edit Wikipedia. Who do you think you are, Gastrich on Wheels? Harvestdancer 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not blocked AFAIK, so why on earth don't you just edit under your real name?! --kingboyk 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason
After reading all the pages devoted to this situation, I am not happy.If I had known what I know now about this situation.I would have never gotten involved.Coming into the situation as I did at your request, I thought you had a good case for vandalism.But this is because I did not know of the pre-existing situation between you and the other involved editors, esp. the off wiki battles.You knew I was concerned about possible bias in limited situations on a few other articles.However the evidence suggest, this situation has more to do with your school than religion.Yes I still believe that religious bias,is a problem with some people. And also bias in regards to other subjects not related to religion.This needs to be addressed.But not like this.Do you understand the difference between a request for fair treatment and what you are doing? I also can't understand why you don't understand that this is not helpful to other Christians at wiki or elsewhere in the least.Rather it is harmful.This is not the proper way for a minister to act.This is just a website, don't you understand that? Even if you were given your way here, what happens a few years down the line if the project changes, ends or the rules change? Think it couldn't happen? Think again.This is the internet, change is the norm. You need to back up a bit and view this situation for what it is. Rather than acting like it is a grudge match.Yes there were some instances where you were wronged, but you can't complain because you engaged in the same behavior.This tit for tat war can't end well for anyone,including yourself.

To the other wikians involved in this I would like to say that what is going on here is not representative of Christianity or the Baptist Church, Southern Baptist or otherwise.California12 21:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry California12, it is well understood by the "atheists" and "unbelievers" (as labelled by Gastrich) that this is about his ego and nothing to do with religion. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cal12. Don't worry--I'm quite aware that Jason's behavior is not representative of Christians or Southern Baptists. I am a Christian--specifically, a Southern Baptist. :D And while I greatly disagree with Jason's actions here, I'm praying for him and his ministry. Justin Eiler 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Links/Self-Promotion
Why do we allow a vandal to use a userpage as a mechanism for promoting his own sites? Jason Gastrich has violated almost every Wikipedia policy in his short time here, and just like WoW or The Communism Vandal, does not deserve the benefit of a userpage. Can an admin please blank his page, or at least remove those links to his sites and products? Hexagonal 01:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your ideas sound good, I've tried it out, we'll see how it flies. Generally, though, users are allowed to edit their own userpages, so until Jason Gastrich is indefinitely banned (which isn't too far away at this point), he might revert. -- Cyde Weys 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While Wikipedia is not a US court of law, I'd be a lot more comfortable if the ArbCom weighed in with their decision before zapping his userpage. Additionally--no insult to you, Cyde--but an admin with whom he has argued in the past blanking his userpage will only lead to more accusations of "admin abuse of power." You know it's not true, and I know it's not true, but maybe we shouldn't give "even the appearance of evil." Justin Eiler 01:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thing I'm not an admin then :-P  Though for some reason everyone thinks I am.  -- Cyde Weys  01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll plead too much blood in my caffein stream. ;) Justin Eiler 01:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we ask for this in a temporary injunction? It is absolutely unfathomable that Jason is allowed to edit and use sockpuppets as he pleases, just because of an Arbcom backlog. Hexagonal 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * TTBOMU, now that it's in the hands of the ArbCom, they're the ones that can issue that temporary injunction--indeed, it's part of the RfArb format. If you like, however, one thing that may help speed up the process is listing the new sock puppets on the Evidence page on Jason's RfArb. Justin Eiler 02:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Argh, this clown has me mad as hell. Why can't process be expedited when vandals are continually operating? Jason's wikilawyering should not delay the stopping of his socks. Hexagonal 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We can stop the socks, but not all of them are socks - some are impersonators. Blanking Jason's page would be an unusual move, and is only usually applied to indefinitely blocked vandals.  I am not at all sure that Jason will be blocked - that rather depends on whether Arbcom think he can overcome his strong opinions sufficiently to start playing by the rules.  I would not like to call that one myself: it is possible that after a cooling-off period Jason could become a valuable contributor.  At least some of his past edits were appropriate and filled out subjects which were under-represented.  Guy  12:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly (having only recently started contributing to Wiki and even more recently encountering such evidence of abuse), I consider keeping such a userpage up to be a Good Thing, if for no other reason than this talk page (if I understand correctly) would not exist without the userpage to which it is tied. This talk page contains a wealth of insight into how Wiki handles persistent abusers and makes it clear that many (a great many, if the above is correct) warnings and exhortations to better behavior are given before an individual is simply flat-out banned from contributing.  I'm not finished plumbing the depths of the nature of the abuse and abuser, but I've certainly seen enough to concede the word abuse appropriate.  Longshot14 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Longshot! No, even if the user page was deleted, the talk page would still exist. However, what Hexagonal is talking about is making the page blank, not deleting it.


 * Oh, and by the way--welcome to Wikipedia. Justin Eiler 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A Letter to Mr. Jason Gastrich
Mr. Gastrich,

I applaud your great faith in our savior, Jesus Christ.

Anyone who is brave enough to stand up with such faith and announce it to the world deserves some commendation. It is admirable to see people such as yourself who are unafraid to stand up for what they believe in. I, too, am a devout follower of Christ and his teachings.

But Mr. Gastrich, the time comes when faithful devoutness turns into overambitious zealotry. When the battle is less for Christ than it is to heal your own pride, then it is not Christ you are serving, but your natural form, and the natural man is an enemy to God. Why is it that most of our natural inclinations are contrary to the will of God? It is because God's way never was the easy way. You see, what you have decided to do was to take this encyclopedia and edit it as per your own desires, masked by an oft-spoken "dedication" of sorts of these efforts to Christ.

When the Crusaders stormed Jerusalem and murdered all the women and children inhabitants circa 1100 AD, was it not in the name of God that they did so?

That's not to compare what you have done to that horrible massacre. Let me be quite clear on that fact. However, the basic principle is the same, and has existed since the dawn of sin: People think that they are doing the service of God, when really, they are only following their own interpretation of his will. Did Christ himself not say, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"? Mr. Gastrich, I have read your profile and my understanding is that you are a highly educated, highly principled man. I am under the impression that you are a nice man with a fervent belief in Jesus Christ. All of these traits are admirable. But please, Mr. Gastrich, where in the scriptures does it say that God's work is done by attempting to circumvent the rules of an electronic encyclopedia?

Thank you for your time, Mr. Gastrich, and good luck in the future. May the Lord bless you and watch over you.

Sincerely,

--Commander Cool, part deux 09:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is 's fourth edit. Arbusto 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not too bad though! I certainly find this letter... worth refactoring (see diff). :-) AvB ÷ talk  08:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmdr. Cool, you honestly don't know where it says that in the scriptures? It's right there in StPaul536's Epistle To Usenet, 5.16: "'And thou shalt go into the wilderness known as Wikipedia, where there dwelleth heathen men who know not My name. And thou shalt glorify My name before them, yea, even unto the fourth or fifth revert. And they will wail and gnash their teeth and attempt to silence thee, but truly, even as they cut off one tongue, it will be as if a million voices rise up in chorus, as fast as the heathens may cast them down into the drawer of the socks.'" And let us not forget the Gospel According to Fred Phelps, 9.47: "'A man came to Jason and spoke 'Teacher, how many times shall I glorify thy name and the alma of thy mater? The elders say I may do so three times between each cock's crowing, and no more.' Trying to please his teacher he added 'Perhaps I should glorify thou until seven times?' Jason smiled (for he was watching NASCAR over the pupil's shoulder and someone had just crashed horribly) and spoke 'I say not to thee until seven times, but seventy times seven. For when thou hast broken the laws of men in the name of the Lord, thou mayest as well go the whole hog.'"

--Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think...I wrote this letter in one draft at about 2:00 AM my time, and I think that, for as tired as I was (I had also taken NyQuill for a cold), it actually turned out pretty well. I mean, it wanders a lot, and my points don't always match up together (as though it were...uh...wandering...). I will be making more edits in the future, Arbusto, and thanks for possibly referring to me as a vandal (I'm a noob, so I may just be mistaken). In either case, it's cool by me. I just wanted to get my own personal message out there, with no regard to what others may think of me.

And I liked the scriptures, Sam Blanning!

Commander Cool, part deux 03:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your apology
For what it's worth, I accept your apology and apologise in turn for being sometimes more aggressive than perhaps I could have been. I have no desire to see you blocked from editing as ArbCom seem to be proposing right now, my preference was always for some kind of community-based process to persuade you to play by the rules. I am also prone to strong opinions and frequently have to take a deep breath and remember that WP:NPOV means representign all sides of an issue. I think you should make some comment in the RFAr. Just zis Guy you know? 10:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation requires responsibility
Jason, you said "The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing." While I quite agree that many (perhaps most, perhaps even all) of the recent sockpuppets are not yours, I must point out that you did start with the sockpuppets. Those who have decided to impersonate you are merely following your example.

Jason, I would greatly prefer to be reconciled with you, not only as my brother in Christ, but as a fellow Wikipedia editor. But I am forced to remind you that the first step of reconciliation requires that you take responsibility for the wrongs that you have done. I have absolutely no doubt that much of the later disturbances has little to do with you, and therefore is not your responsibility. But I cannot reconcile with you until you take responsibility for the wrongs that you did.

Rest assured, I have been praying for you and will continue to do so. But--in accordance with the commandments of our Lord--I cannot accept excuses made to evade repentance.

Justin Eiler 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich
The above arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed involving you
Please see Requests_for_arbitration --Ben 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Reblock

 * Due to these violations, your ban has been reset and now expires on April 2nd, 2007. Stifle 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Per CheckUser evidence re the timer is now reset to April 15. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of a persistent use of sockpuppets, I am asserting that you have exhausted the community's patience, and you are now blocked indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:NealWeaver.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:NealWeaver.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Play on Words (band)
I've nominated Play on Words (band), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Play on Words (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Play on Words (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Play on Words (band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RJASE1 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Unblock Request?
If it was you...

Creating a sock puppet to request unblocking is the wrong way to do it. The process is described at WP:BAN. You need to contact an administrator or a clerk.

Otherwise User:$'s and sense is an imposter, and we'd love to hear from you on that issue.

Last time you requested unbanning, I spoke up for you. You retaliated by posting my name, address, and phone number on a google group. Do you want me to speak up for you again, and how will you punish me for speaking up for you? Harvestdancer 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That person is not me. However, I'd like to appeal my ban, now. --Jason Gastrich 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can post on your talk and explain why you think the block is unfair. Arbustoo 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban
Your block was accidentally lifted by an issue in the way your blocks were set. You are banned from editing Wikipedia indefinitely because of the exhaustion of the community's patience last year.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 03:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal Indef Ban
The 1 year ban has expired, even with the resets. I don't think the indefinite ban is fair, so I'd like to appeal it. --Jason Gastrich 04:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I have emailed a clerk, per Harvestdancer's instructions. If that isn't sufficient, let me know. --Jason Gastrich 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since when does an indefinite ban have a one year term? FeloniousMonk 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Jason, you convinced the arbcom to rescind your indefinite ban. Welcome back. Though your ban had very, very strong community support, I recognize the decision was within the purview of the arbcom and have to respect that. Having been given this second chance now, I trust you will not engage in self-promotion, edit warring or sock puppetry again. No doubt your next moves will be watched by many of those who confronted you previously and made the community ban a reality. Considering that, please keep in mind that the community is going to have a very, very low tolerance threshold for that sort of disruption again. Use this second chance wisely. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for welcoming me back, FeloniousMonk. --Jason Gastrich 06:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are unblocked I think it is best to address the problems you have caused numerous editors. Arbustoo 06:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for any problems I may have caused before my 1 year ban. If an editor is upset at me about the past, I encourage him or her to let me know and I'd be happy to issue a personal apology. --Jason Gastrich 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Archives
While it is courteous to not immediately remove messages to you, you are not required to archive talk pages, or link to them. All edits to the page are archived automatically in the history of the page. Fred Bauder 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebanning
Checkuser results show extensive recent use of sockpuppets. I have rebanned you. Fred Bauder 12:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In recent months, I did create a couple of accounts with my work computer (e.g. static IP), so I could contribute to a couple of articles. For the record, I didn't do any edit warring and I did not abuse Wikipedia. I simply contributed to a few articles. At any rate, I apologize for returning early. I just wanted to improve the project (as I still wish to do). --Jason Gastrich 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:81i.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:81i.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Hannah.JohnD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hannah.JohnD.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations
Jason,

User:Nascentatheist has been accusing me of being your sockpuppet. Would you mind telling them I'm not? --Creashin 02:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that Jason's history here has been one of deception and sock-puppetry, followed by denials of sock-puppetry, followed by admissions of sock-puppetry, followed by admissions of sock-puppetry to edit articles while banned, you should probably consider that his word will not be sufficient on the matter. As I have suggested elsewhere, if you are not  Jason Gastrich, you should drop the matter and continue to edit as you have been doing, and allow site administration to conduct the investigation.  As long as you do that, I will not be responding to you, and will go about my business, as well.  It is now in their hands. - Nascentatheist 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Creashin, I've been blamed for countless sockpuppets that I haven't used. Don't be surprised if you take the blame for something you didn't do. Even this "Nascentatheist" is actually User:WarriorScribe and other sockpuppets of one Dave Horn[ ]. Talk to User:Usenetpostsdotcom because he knows Horn and his interests to take down Christianity. --Jason Gastrich 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, I will remove this link every time you post it. Why will I do that?  Two reasons.  First, though you wrote an edit summary that it shouldn't have been removed in the first place, this little bit of Wikipedia policy says otherwise.  Your juvenile Google Group is nothing more than an attack site, created to revenge yourself on others and, because only you post to it, there is no mechanism for rebuttal.  Even so, your claims have been shown to be misinterpretations at best - lies, at worst.  Second:  Because I am not your boogie-man, and I have said as much and I've dealt with what little evidence you presented and what little more was provided by  Uncle Davey.  Your group does not allow rebuttal, and you shy away from rebuttal when it is provided in venues that you do not control (e.g., Farrell Till's list).  In other words, you will make baseless accusations with little or no evidence, and you will not defend them when they are challenged.  Your insistence on putting in this link shows that you're not ready to be reinstated, if only because, by its repeated posting, you willfully violate Wikipedia policy in order to advance a personal agenda.  The posts at the Google Group were written by you, hiding behind a pseudonym, "Fraud Buster," that has been proven to be you.  Included in the those posts are several attacking editors at Wikipedia and, frankly, being very dishonest about the whole affair on all levels.  It would actually better serve the purpose to leave the link, but we all know about it and about you.  Your Google Group is an excellent example of your failure as a minister and your lack of maturity.  Still, it serves no purpose, here, and all you are doing is defying yet another aspect of Wikipedia, namely, WP:BATTLE, in addition to the obvious WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF.  If you don't have the courage to defend your accusations openly, don't pretend that you can hide from them by the use of the links. - Nascentatheist 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, Creashin was established as a sock puppet of yours, and I suspect and have labeled  Davesig as such, as well.  I have already disproven claims that I am a sock puppet of someone else.  When that disproof was provided,  Uncle Davey fled the discussion and the accusations.  I see, below, that you'd like to be unbanned, but your continued sock-puppetry and juvenile accusations won't be persuasive, nor will your name-dropping of uninvolved parties, as seen above and your other shenanigans.  But I'll respond to that when I get to it, below. - Nascentatheist 08:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J. Otis Ledbetter
J. Otis Ledbetter, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that J. Otis Ledbetter satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/J. Otis Ledbetter& and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of J. Otis Ledbetter during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm allowed to vote on this, but I'd be happy to if I could. --Jason Gastrich 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning
I'd like to be unbanned. Can someone tell me the process? --Jason Gastrich 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you had a sense of humor, Jason. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But Jason, you wrote, "spiritually, me and some other believers were becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, having to form close relationships as we dredged over the minutia of each Christian entry and what should and shouldn't be included. In every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense.  This opposition met us head on and I was eventually banned for one year.  I don't see myself returning to Wikipedia because I have shaken the dust from my shoes.  In fact, we even decided to end the Wiki4Christ.com web site that was sending Christians to Wikipedia.  It is an awful place for Christians who sincerely want the truth fairly represented."  So, have things improved at Wikipedia?  Is Wikipedia no longer "an awful place for Christians?"  What's different between then and now that anyone should believe that your presence would benefit the Project?  That is what it's all about, after all.  And isn't it curious that you "appear" after someone calling himself  Davesig complains about those very same kinds of "sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic [sic]" bits of "minutia" with respect to Louisiana Baptist University, tries to whitewash the article, and gets identified as a suspected sock of yours by yours truly for that reason?


 * Of course, we all know that you've been back at Wikipedia a few times - or maybe 200 times, at least. The list of sock-puppets seems to bear that out.  Even though you tell us, above, that the socks weren't yours, 47 of them were verified as yours, and you actually apologized for engaging in sock-puppetry during your previous attempt at reinstatement.  After you were reinstated, you were found to be in violation again , and you even admitted  that you had created accounts and edited while still under sanction as part of the administrative action taken against you .  So even as you were banned for breaking the rules, you continued to break the rules.  This prompts the same question, Jason.  What's different about then and now?  That was just a few months ago, and your behavior in all of the venues in which you have been involved shows no difference in your attitude toward "unbelievers."  You also post contradictory statements about Wikipedia.  To those viewing your web pages, it's "an awful place for Christians."  Of course, we all know that those kinds of statements were "sour grapes" from having been banned, but it's curious that you would post at Wikipedia as if you cared about the Project "and still do ."  What evidence do we have to consider that you truly care about the Project or that you'll behave any differently than you did before?  You've already posted an unsubstantiated suspicion about yours truly and posted a link to your Google Gossip Group  on this talk page, and it's at that same Google Group at which you make a number of accusations - including against members of the Wikipedia community   .  You have done this under the pseudonym, "Fraud Buster," a proven Internet personality of your own that you actually tried to pretend wasn't and isn't you.


 * Don't you also think it's a little silly to play dumb and ask for the procedure for reinstatement? After all, you went through the process just last April .  Perhaps you forgot, but it does seem to me that nothing has changed about any of the things that got you banned in the first place.  I will recommend against your reinstatement, and I suspect that I will not be alone. - Nascentatheist 09:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha, you're funny Jason. Particularly since the arbcom just gave you a chance just 3 months ago and found that you'd been using sock puppets throughout your ban. I doubt anything's changed since then. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, but I have apologized and all of the editing I did during my ban was constructive and beneficial; not deserving of a continued ban. --Jason Gastrich 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You do have a rather strange view of things, Jason. You admit here that you created other accounts and continued to edit (how "constructive and beneficial" those edits were is debatable).  That was one of the very reasons you were banned in the first place.  You continued to show a marked disregard for the community and its standards by editing when you were banned, and you are admitting that.  It's funny, too, because you denied doing these very things before, and now you admit them.  So you must also admit that you lied when you denied creating these sock-puppet accounts.  Isn't that so? - Nascentatheist 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about what I had to say here, Jason? Have you abandoned those claims?  Are you now willing to be "unequally yoked?"  Do you no longer assert that "in every case, the unbelievers wanted sensational, ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and in many cases incorrect information included and some others and I insisted on including the truth and excluding that nonsense."  - Nascentatheist 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a very serious problem with integrity and sincerity and those are things for which there is significant evidence. I, for one, will vigorously oppose any attempt by you at reinstatement.  Wikipedia has enough problems with credibility and you and those who behave as you do contribute significantly to that problem. - Nascentatheist 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to go through a mentor relationship as was once suggesteed? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jason. I'd be willing to do this. I'd be open to this or other measures as I prove I can be a valued contributor. --Jason Gastrich 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who would you be willing to accept as a "mentor," Jason? - Nascentatheist 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you put mentor in quotes? I'd be happy to accept whoever the community deems appropriate. --Jason Gastrich 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I put "mentor" in quotes, Jason, because your past behavior has shown that you don't really view anyone as a mentor.
 * What if the community deems that I should be your mentor? Or any person you know to be an atheist (it will likely make no difference to the community)?  Can you take direction from and work with an atheist?  I noticed that you didn't answer my question about "unequal yoking" and if you have changed your mind about that, so this is an associated question.  - Nascentatheist 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think you would see in such a mentor relationship? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The road to redemption, Jason, must include taking responsibility. You wrote, "One or more people have been vandalizing Wikipedia and I have been getting blamed for it.  Unfortunately, some people are very quick to label offensive contributors as 'Jason Gastrich sock puppets.'"  One of the things you wrote about Wikipedia in your "Response to hate sites" article, in addition to what I have already quoted above, was, "they [Wikipedia administration] even have a 'Check User' function, where some administrators can check IP addresses to verify sock puppets.  You would think they would finally get it right by checking IPs, but they still didn't and don't."
 * Actually, it is my belief that at least one of the suspected socks (not proven socks) is actually an individual who uses the handle Bible John. The sock is User:Hugo the Hippo.  He is telling the truth when he states that some of the socks aren't him.  The blame is NOT unfair though. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So you basically all but accuse the administration at Wikipedia and those who run the Check User function of incompetence. I'd be very curious if you could tell us about the mechanics of "Check User," Jason, and why it is that you would claim that the administration at Wikipedia couldn't "get it right."  Tell us, in detail, how it is that Wikipedia administration was wrong about the 47 verified sock-puppets attributed to you.


 * I don't know why they couldn't get it right. All I know is many of the sockpuppets were not me. As you know, I have admitted to using some sockpuppets and I've paid the price. --Jason Gastrich 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, the question included getting you to detail the mechanics of "Check User," and you didn't do that, while continuing to assert that they "couldn't get it right." If you don't know why they couldn't get it right, why would you tell others that they couldn't, when you're not even sure of the process?
 * You say that all you know is that many of the sockpuppets weren't you. How many weren't you?  How many were you?  And weren't you denying that you were doing these things at the time?  Were you lying then or are you lying now? - Nascentatheist 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What's interesting is that this was all part of your denial that you had participated in sock-puppetry, even as you seem to be admitting to at least some of it now. Tell us, Jason, how many of the suspected sock puppets and verified sock puppets are you willing to admit were yours?  There are 178 combined, and those are the ones that are known.


 * Noted: No reply by Jason. - Nascentatheist 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'd be curious about is if you were lying then, when you denied the sock-puppetry, or if you are lying now, because you desperately need Wikipedia and other Internet outlets for your "ministry." You seem to have experienced a number of set-backs, including banning from several forums and several physical moves, if my reading of your history of just the last couple of years is any indication.


 * I won't use Wikipedia as an outlet for my ministry. I haven't experienced any setbacks at all, though. I am glad that you're still reading my weekly newsletter, though. --Jason Gastrich 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, spare us your rhetoric and your denials. They don't help your case, especially when I can prove otherwise, if the need arises.  You have been doing nothing but using any and all forums and outlets including Wikipedia for your ministry.  What assurances do we have that you won't continue to do that? - Nascentatheist 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless, if you are going to try to rehabilitate yourself before the Wikipedia community in an attempt to be reinstated, I suspect that you will need to explain your behavior to the satisfaction of the community, and that means that you will need to explain, in something other than the paranoid terms you have already used, just why it was you felt the need to create so many sock-puppets, even as you were banned for using them for abusive purposes. Your explanation, should you choose to provide it, will be very interesting, I'm sure.  - Nascentatheist 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect I will. I'd be happy to do whatever it takes. In the past, my only problems were with certain religious articles because I didn't feel they were being properly written. I created sockpuppets to represent what I thought was a proper viewpoint, being severely under-represented on Wikipedia. I suggest the Wikipedia community allow me to return on a probationary basis (perhaps for 1 year) and I will not edit any religious articles during that time. --Jason Gastrich 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Whatever it takes." Interesting.  Jason, you still haven't answered what I asked about being "unequally yoked."  Is your desire for participation so strong that you will be "unequally yoked" with "unbelievers?"  You say you won't edit religious articles for a year.  What happens after that?  And if you say you won't edit those articles for a year, and you also claimed that you had no sockpuppets and now admit that you did, and you also admit that you edited while under a community ban, in clear defiance of that ban, why should anyone believe anything that you say?  Ducking questions and using rhetoric is not going to be convincing.  One of your problems is a presumption on your part that you can put things over on people, coupled with a fairly powerful arrogance.  Those were certainly noted before.  What's different between then and now?  - Nascentatheist 05:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted, that you claimed that you behaved as you did because you felt that the "proper viewpoint" was not being represented. What "proper viewpoint" would that be?  Would that be in line with your earlier claim that you created sockpuppets because your "opponents" would "revert every edit" that you made, simply because it was you that made them?  Do you still believe that and, if you do, what evidence are you prepared to offer? - Nascentatheist 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this. You are going to have to explain you actions, in full. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another question, Jason: Why is this so important to you that you would actually use the tactics that you have used?  You have used repeated sock-puppets and evaded and attempted to evade the ban placed upon you, in direct violation of the edicts of the administrators of the site in accordance with the community.  In other words, regardless of what was decided, you were going to do things your way.  Right?  You tell us that you have a very successful ministry - no setbacks - and you often tell people, as you did as  Creashin, that you don't have time for specifics whenever you are challenged about issues. You must be very busy, yet you spent a lot of time on Wikipedia when you were not banned and you have spent no small amount of time and effort attempting to circumvent the ban.
 * And my final question for today: Why does Wikipedia need you?  Or is it that you need Wikipedia?  Don't respond with "Wikipedia needs all editors."  What Wikipedia needs are editors who care more about the Project than their own personal agendas, and won't try to game the system or circumvent the rules and rulings, as you have spent a great deal of time and energy doing.  No, the question is, "why does Wikipedia need you?"
 * Jason, my bottom line to you is that you cannot be reinstated because you clearly never accepted the ban in the first place, you defied site authority and the community, and so you have not been rehabilitated. You have shown no remorse for your actions.  You spent the better part of the time you were banned trying to get around the ban, even as recently as late August, when  Creashin was outed as one of your socks (and I still harbor vague doubts about one or two others I've seen).  The problem with your denials is that you've denied before, and found to be lying.  Now you're admitting to some of the behavior while holding that site administration still doesn't seem to be getting it right.  You have no regard for the community or the Project, nor do you seem to have much interest in following the rules of others, even if we overlook the "unequally yoked" comments that you have made.  You're not ready, Jason, and the early comments from administrators seems to show a consensus in that regard. - Nascentatheist 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jason, you've already shown numerous times that where your personal beliefs conflict with policy then in your view your beliefs must win, and where policy conflicts with your beliefs then policy is necessarily wrong and must be ignored. Your sites have been blacklisted due to their being spammed, and if you can find an admin who's prepared to unblock you then I'd be very surprised indeed.  Bottom line: some editors are disruptive and need constant patrolling, but their value to the project repays the effort.  Others require substantially more effort than the value of their past or likely future contributions - and that group includes you.  Sorry, but I think the project can do without your vanity and hubris. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Amercolmed.png
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Amercolmed.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Taking My Leave
I noticed how the thread that was opened to discuss my potential probationary reinstatement was closed. I'm disappointed that I'm still banned, but I'll take my leave now. If and when I decide to return and seek reinstatement, I'll be happy to answer questions that are posed to me. There is no point at this juncture, though. --Jason Gastrich 06:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all right, Jason. You didn't have any satisfactory answers, anyway, did you?  We know that.  It doesn't look as if you'll ever be welcome back at Wikipedia as long as you continue with your present tactics, attitudes, and immature actions.  The only way that you will ever be able to redeem yourself is by observation of actions over time - a long time - and by providing reasonable explanations for what has gone before.  I don't see that happening.  I'm not surprised that you avoided what was asked of you, and I'm not surprised that not a single administrator would support your reinstatement.  You have no one to blame for your disappointment but yourself, Jason. - Nascentatheist 07:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your pursuit and harassment of me and other Christians is well known and chronicled here[ ]. Pulling a gun on an unarmed Christian, being banned on the IIDB forum, stalking Christians, being condemned by Google, threatening Christians, encouraging others to steal, calling those who don't agree with you "cultists", being deemed a Wikipedia troll, and much more have been exposed in detail. New atheist and old foe, while you may have gotten what you want on Wikipedia today, don't assume you will forever. Despite your assertions and tactics, I can be a valued and rule-abiding contributor on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I can be a valued and rule-abiding contributor on Wikipedia." Well, not today, at any rate.  Poor Jason.  Not only do you engage in public pouting, but you once again show that you'll violate Wikipedia rules and even going back on what you said yesterday, you know, the part about taking your leave?  You again posted the link to your attack group, and I've deleted it again.  You have provided no proof that I'm your boogie-man, and I have refuted your claims.  Your "proofs" about your boogie-man were exposed by him, in open discussion (something you don't allow), as lies and exaggerations.  Jason, I won't argue with you about this, as so many have in the past.  Every post shows you to be irrational and agenda-driven.  Even your refusal to keep your attack site link off of Wikipedia when I have already shown you that the posting of it violates policy just underscores that the site administration was right, and you were rightfully banned and the ban is rightfully extended.  Do yourself a favor.  Grow up. - Nascentatheist 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)