User talk:Turkmen (usurped)

Warning
Please read and follow WP:POLICY, and particularly WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you're going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Any personal attacks and disruption can result in you being blocked from editing. FeloniousMonk 07:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He did exactly what he should do. You were rude and wrongly accusatory.  Within the bounds of civil behaviour and respect for other members of the community you could follow the correct course of action and apologise for your unacceptable behaviour, or you could just shut up about your mistake, and I'm sure people would let it slide based on the fact that you are a new user.  Since you chose to continue your rude behaviour, you should apologise and make an effort to learn something about community etiquette.  Guettarda 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think he did anything wrong. Actually, what I see here is you being very impolite when telling him to "shut up". It makes sense that you're a friend of Monk. He is also impolite, but is very quick in advising people about Wiki policy and WP:CIVIL. --Candide, or Optimism 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As per below - be careful who you take advice from. Guettarda 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkmen, my experience with User:FeloniousMonk is that he uses his tools in the wrong way and I urge you to take great caution when confronting him. --Candide, or Optimism 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean in terms of your behaviour which led Jimbo to say Knock it off or I'll ban you myself? Guettarda 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in those terms exactly. --Candide, or Optimism 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we agree on what Turkmen should do. I advised him to be cautious and you did the same. We just disagree on the reason, that's all. --Candide, or Optimism 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take everything under advisement.. Thankyou. --Turkmen 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LBU entry
If the additions in question cannot achieve consensus support then there is little I (or you) could do to reinsert them. - RoyBoy 800 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, nobody cares about consensus. It's just a revert war between User:JzG and anyone who gets in his way. This isn't right. --Turkmen 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't an accurate description of events. What isn't right is trying to force your edits onto the article, and believing mentioning it on the talk page is sufficient reason to keep those changes. - RoyBoy 800 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seen that your friends with JzG, but that's still not a reason to support his treachery. He's deleting pertinent information without any reason or recourse. It's his way or the highway. I guess he's the real admin (or at least the most obnoxious one) and you're just a bystander. However, I thought you were trying to help the entry. --Turkmen 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jason! Mark K. Bilbo 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't really know who JzG prior to his participation in LBU, and if we were friends I fail to see how that makes "deleting pertinent information without any reason or recourse" true in any fashion (even "deleting" isn't accurate since he's "reverting" your changes, which are still in the article history to be viewed and scrutinized). I am here to help the entry, and to maintain Wikipedia in doing so. Helping the entry and agreeing with you aren't necessarily the same thing; if you are under the impression they are the same thing, then I'm doubtful you are suited to be a constructive member of Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 800 02:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have to admit that what he has done is wrong, but it is. Deleting pertinent information, some of which has been agreed upon by consensus, is wrong. Furthermore, deleting this information without giving reasons why is wrong. You must either share his lack of integrity or perhaps you're just sticking up for him because he's another admin. --Turkmen 06:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As RoyBoy says, no information was deleted. You were reverting to a version which was itself the subject of a 3RR violation by Gastrich's sock-farm.  I don't think anyone else would have done any different, especially given your edit history. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 09:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually its you that needs help, not JzG; and with every post you make, I see fewer reasons to stick up for you. BTW, which consensus are you referring to? And speaking of integrity:


 * "Senseless editting lately," that's funny because you only registered on Jan. 31st. Have you been posting as someone else before? Arbustoo 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that comment on my talk page is pertinent on the subject of integrity. Please demonstrate integrity prior to judging others, or put a better way, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Oh yeah, and what consensus are you referring to? And David added you were registered on the 24th, but I believe the thrust of the statement still stands. - RoyBoy 800 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the trust of the statement still stands. Just keeping the facts straight. i also want to know which deletions Gastrich thinks go against consensus.  I have lost track of what was discussed and the deletions I saw did seem to be still on the table for discussion. David D. (Talk) 18:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning
You have reverted twice to a version of LBU put up by a blocked sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. There is an active block on other socks who have done this, once more and you get included in that block. Take it to the Talk page. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the Devil himself wrote the information if it is relevant and encyclopedic. You have no business deleting without comment. You're abusing your admin privileges. --Turkmen 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. Most would say he is doing a gret job. The talk page is the place to work out these differences. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Most" is baloney. For instance, there already was a consensus on the academic reviews and he dishonestly or ignorantly deleted them and said consensus was needed. Don't think for a minute that he is unbiased or has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. We'll see that on the talk page, but he likes to revert and run, so he probably won't stick his head in there to comment. --Turkmen 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The disruption that is occurring at this minute because of Gastrich's socks has to stop now. If that means waiting to determine a concensus later rather than sooner so be it.  Stop wasting everyones time. Your post on  page is just adding more fuel to the fire. Given your views are in the minority you will have to take it to the talk page.  The more you whine, the more you edit war the less people will be willing to listen to your point of view.  Posting to wikipedia may be open to anyone who has internet access but it is not a right. David D. (Talk) 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How are you connected to LBU?
The original claim: ''I know a good deal about LBU. Without considering LBU's documented policies on course work and credit, and taking as law a UK web site's one sentence about Missler's book and LBU credit is absurd. It needs to be expanded or deleted. --Turkmen 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)''

Please explain what and how you know these things about LBU? Arbustoo 09:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One final plea
Jason, I am asking you one more time to come clean on your identity. Revert your POV please. Arbustoo 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing. Your contributions are functionally identical to those of Jason Gastrich, and identically disruptive. You have been made aware that the edits you are trying to make to LBU and Pacific International University are highly contentious, and have made no effort to achieve consensus. You are blocked for 24 hours. I will also notify this on the administrators' noticeboard for peer-review of this action. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already made direct comments to you about your behavior and I'm quite certain this is why you have blocked me. For instance, the PIU article was expanded nicely, but you have consistently deleted - without any comment as to why - the history of the school, its degree offerings, and its response to non-accreditation. I understand that you can't explain why those things should be absent, but blocking me because I expose your nonsense isn't the way to go about this, admin. --Turkmen 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating sockpuppets isn't the way to try to circumvent consensus, community censure and the three-revert rule, Jason. If you see Guy reverting your POV edits and blocking you as some kind of conflict of interest (which it isn't), then plenty of other admins, including ones with no prior involvement in this issue, have endorsed Guy's closure of your RfC that requires that you cease use of sockpuppet accounts. --Malthusian (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PROOF TURKMEN IS JASON GASTRICH
"Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to Michael Newdow (an atheist). Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries ran by Jason Gastrich. Its cyberquatting. On a side note Jason owns the domain until August. Keep in mind this is after the community sanction.

This isn't the first time Jason Gastrich has cyberquatted. Here's evidence from April 2005 at the Wikipedia article Anthony Flew. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com

The adminstrators need to take control on this issue. Arbustoo 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)