Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arbustoo

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Former user 20 (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 7 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:59, 7 March 2006 by Former user 20 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

User Talk

  • Be sure to use article talk pages to discuss article changes.

SAB

Did't the buffalo leave it intact with a comment? Possibly I missed it since there were quite few edits. The title was ridiculously POV. I think it would be good to get the strongest examples that SAB has to offer, so that any rebutal sentences are near impossible. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there are serious changes, it needs to be fixed. Funny how the buffalo replies "not a contradiction" and s/he already violated 3RR. Are rebuttals allowed in an encyclopedia? Arbustoo 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
if there is a good source. But buffalo's own interpretation will not fly. David D. (Talk) 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Those are good ones. Such as the giant; if someone wants to argue a cubit is much smaller than what historians today believe then they will only shrink the size of Noah's Ark (450 cubits). Thereby, by making one or the other highly unlikely. Arbustoo 20:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Re: homosexuality, is it wise to engage in and is it genetically caused?

See: Homosexuality, is it wise to engage in and is it genetically caused?

ken 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Why did you post this on my talk page? Arbustoo 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

24.75.30.114 is not Gastritch

24.75.30.114 is User:Kdbuffalo, (Ken DeMeyer), see . He often forgets to log in, for some reason. ---MickWest 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

The link Kitty removed doesn't attribute that quote to Hovind. it attributes it to Hicks. I am therefore removing it. JoshuaZ 01:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry I mean the link that was in Kitty's version and was removed by the anonymous user. JoshuaZ 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Quote/link corrected. Arbustoo 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hovind

Nonsense? If you payed attention, you'd know Hovind started the Dinosaur Adventure Land theme park. Nice going, genius.

Don't even have enough guts to sign your own name, Jason. Get a job. You and your PhD are a joke. Arbustoo 03:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbustoo, while this may be Jason again, (although I doubt it given their extensive contribution list: ) 80 does seem to be somewhat correct here. I have accordingly modified the page. 68, could you please tone down your language? wikipolicy strongly frowns on ad homs and insults. JoshuaZ 03:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This newest jason sock has done almost the same edits that the new Wiki4christ and Wiki4Christ has done-- at within a few hours. Arbustoo 03:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, this may be problematic in that 68.* lists a fair number of helpful edits as well. So it seems then Jason is using a computer that others have acess too. JoshuaZ 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
A quick IP check shows its an anon. IP. Arbustoo 03:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

my user page.

Um, Arbustoo, I'm a little curious as to why you made my user page non-blank. JoshuaZ 04:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been clicking on you user name following the Wiki4Christ puppets and making it appear as a real link makes it easy to follow and lets others know you are not a puppet/new user. Arbustoo 04:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles

ARBUSTOO, PLEASE STOP VALDALIZING WIKI PAGES. IF YOU CANNOT WRITE IN A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, THEN DO NOT EDIT.

Dude, chill out. Arbustoo is a highly reasonable editor, and anyways people will pay much more attention to you if don't shout in all caps and bolded. JoshuaZ 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

New user, sign up and read Misplaced Pages rules. You cannot POV fork an article because you don't like claims. Innocent or not, criticism is part of the past. Read POV_fork if you wish to debate this further. Arbustoo 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to write in a neutral point of view. Your constant vandalism of this Wiki will not be tolerated. -- moved from user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

Arbustoo quit vandalizing the Jack Hyles and Hyles Anderson College Wiki. -- moved from user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

George, you really need to learn the Misplaced Pages rules if you are going to contribute. Blanking pages, such as the article and your talk is in direct violation of the rules. Reverting a page more than 3 times is against the rules. Arbustoo 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

George, I recommended you familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages rules. Arbustoo 04:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

cordial links to Oxford university

What a complete sham. i just noticed that Oxford graduate college page. Cordial links? Does that mean they have phoned up some of the profs in various departments at Oxford University? These universities are so pathetic in their transparent attempts to be linked to Universities with real standing. I am beginning to realise that there are many of these places in the US not just a few scattered examples. I'm amazed this sort of thing is legal and to think they are always crying persecution. Persecution? They have no idea at all, personally i'm surprised they have not been shut down and thrown in jail for fraud. Oh, by the way, good edits on that page and please excuse my rant. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the rant at all. It's good to see people feel the same way about education. Arbustoo 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the school's webpage they have 100 students, been in existence since 1980, don't list tuition prices, and have no departments. Arbustoo 01:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles etc.

I protected the page. Please work toward a consensus on the talk page; afterwards, any edits that contravene that consensus should allow you and the other agreeing editors to make judicious use of reporting any 3RR's. · Katefan0/poll 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also added it to my watchlist and will be interjecting ... er, guidance ... when needed ;) · Katefan0/poll 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help again. Arbustoo 03:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your removal of Disputed Tag

Arbustoo, please do not remove the Disputed Tags from the Jack Hyles or First Baptist Church Wikis. As noted in the talk section of the Jack Hyles wiki, these articles are in dispute, hence the tag. Removing them is considered to be vandalism. --Teeja 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Even an Admin. removed the tag after you reinserted it. It will be removed if you cannot argue the grounds you put it in. See the talk pages for my response. Arbusto 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyles Anderson College

Ok, I'll take a look again, although I sort of lost track what was going on there. JoshuaZ 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your fear of Jason Gastrich

I can't believe you just wrote the following in the Bob Cornuke entry:

"Remove Jason Gastrich's self promotion and revert changes he added without commentary"

What are you even trying to say? It sure looks like you're paranoid about this Gastrich fellow. Here is the information I added. Honestly. What's wrong with it?

"He also speaks at Bible conferences like Steeling the Mind, where he shows video footage and lectures about his travels and discoveries . In 2006, Cornuke is schedule to give a workshop at Louisiana Baptist University's graduation week; the same university where he earned his Ph.D. in 2005."

Except for the hot desire that burns deep in your loins against Gastrich, honestly, what's wrong with it? You were the one complaining about lack of citations for Cornuke speaking at Steeling the Mind . . . now you have them, and you complain that it's Gastrich's site. Did you forget to take your fucking medication? --Jack White1 08:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to get your sock puppets straight. Your "Jack White1" puppet didn't add your link. The "Jack White 1" puppet is over at the Kent Hovind article. Arbusto 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You need to stick to the topic and defend your sorry self. So what if I post from two different accounts? Where does Misplaced Pages say I can't do that? Now answer my question and don't think your boyfriends are helping you any. --Jack White1 23:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting homophobic innuendo. David D. (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You ask "Where does Misplaced Pages say I can't do that?" The answer is here. And for completeness, here is the bit where it says you should not make personal attacks, and here is where it says you should remain civil. HTH, HAND. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No this is interesting. You have Jason pretending to be someone who Jason confided his homosexuality to. The direct quote is "defaming him by pretending that person admitted to being GAY" (capitals as quoted). Arbusto 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Whoops...another Gastrich gaffe. Indeed, that was "Jumpstart My Heart" who added that link. You're absolutely right...must be hard to keep track of the socks when there are so many... - WarriorScribe 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You know Arbustoo, that "hot desire that burns deep in your loins against Gastrich" can be cleared up with a few antibiotics nowadays. --Malthusian (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No one fears Gastrich. The problem is that everything he writes (or his socks write) is made up or propaganda. That goes for Cornuke too. This is an encylopedia and fairy stories are not welcome. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just so Jason Gastrich knows, whenever I see a sock puppet adding his webpage as a citation it will be removed. Arbusto 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What the ???

Pages for Colleges and Schools frequently contain lists of notable graduates. If you are going to edit all of this out as useless "name dropping," then you have your work cut out for you! Why not start with West Point, then work your way to little places like the Pensacola Bible Institute.

I'd be interested to know if the most notable alumni from Pensacola BI is as notable as the least notable graduate from West Point. i have noticed a tendancy in the case of LBU that these alumni list grow fast. Thats fine if we are talking really notable but if not these alumni list s need to be kept short. Very short. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Jason Gastrich, the day West Point and the Pensacola Bible Institute are recognized as having the same academics you can post that comment. Arbusto 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Some here have attacked LBU and their graduates and the list of LBU graduates. Therefore, in order to save face, appear to have Wiki's best interests in mind, and seem like well-adjusted, normal contributors, they have to try and screw up other entries to try and remain consistent. --Jack White1 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
In the section above you claimed you added a link to the Cornuke page. How? Your history and the page history shows someone else did it. There is a policy against sock puppets.Arbusto 00:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you any idea how unusual it is for a user RfC to gain 50 endorsements, or for an RfAr to be accepted 7/0/0 within days of its proposal? There is no significant dissent from the view that Gastrich, not Arbustoo, is the problem editor. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

God loves you, Arbustoo

Arbustoo, God loves you, and I am praying for you personally and that He would solve this problem you seem to have with His Children. Just so you know, God usually answers my prayers in the affirmative. --68.78.118.244 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Please stop removing cited information. Arbusto 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that God's children need to be protected from themselves or at least from their own ministers. Removing all the damning criticism about Hyle will not hide that point. David D. (Talk) 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Just so you know, God usually answers my prayers in the affirmative". Gastrich needs to start issuing C&C warnings, that sentence is my current personal highlight of the whole sorry affair. --Malthusian (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Puppet tag

Please don't put a puppet tag on my user page. I'm not a puppet.

You need to discuss why you're deleting the two links on Till's page. See you on the talk page. --Juicy Juicy 02:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich, are you a little angry your links are removed? Arbusto 02:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Juicy Juicy asked you a valid question. Are you going to answer? You have been VERY hastily calling new users sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. Why? Where is your evidence? Will you be repenting from this behavior? --Dragonfly02 23:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Why repent when he's been proven right ... time and time again? Justin Eiler 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, he hasn't been proven right even once. Him thinking that all of these users are either "a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet or an impersonator" is completely conjecture. With your definition of proof, I just proved you were 10 feet tall. How? Cuz I said so. --Dragonfly02 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And check Dragonfly's edits. It mays edits characteristically like Jason. Am I the only person who find this funny? JoshuaZ 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Comment (RfC)

You're formally invited to come and respond to your RfC. --Juicy Juicy 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it Abustoo, it will be a complete waste of time. David D. (Talk) 03:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Juicy Juicy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 11 posts. Arbusto 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The page in question, Jason Gastrich, and homosexuality

The page Gastrich is particularly interested in has a unique background. As it turns out, he committed a felony by pretending to be Farrell Till and came out of closet with his sexuality while posing as Till via email. This shows the length and dishonesty that he does in the name of religion. It also shows a particular interest of POV pushing on that page. He later claimed it was a joke. Arbusto 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, cuz what I see here is a guy making a mistake and saying he's sorry......AFTER Farrel Till was suspended from posting on Gastrich's internet forum, then returned under a fake name, got suspended, and returned under another fake name and was suspended, again. That's when Gastrich spoofed Till's email address and sent an email to Till's mail list. Not a felony by any stretch of the imagination, and perfectly reasonable given the circumstances.
Linking durangobill's web site and going on and on about Gastrich is only making you look worse; especially cuz you're avoiding your RfC. You better straighten up, or your time around here will be limited.....as limited as Gastrich's. --Joshua39215 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
So how do you expalin the facf that Gastrich kept denying he had forged the e-mail? Do those lies and deceit not count? That action was the precedent for many of your actions. As we see today you continue with deceit and thus your apology is worthless. David D. (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a cycle of abuse. Jason lies to attack someone, he says he is sorry. He lies again, says he's sorry. And again and again. And again, and a-- how many sock puppets should be sorry for? How many deceitful AfD's should he be sorry for? How many personal attacks should be sorry for? The answer is more than one and we haven't even seen one apology for his wiki-ways. Arbusto 08:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I think he is sorry he got caught, again. Although I feel now he is moving into his persecution phase. Could that be why these socks are so easy to find, he wants the all the trouble to wear as a badge of honor? David D. (Talk) 09:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Joshua39215's first edit ever is on this page defending Gastrich. That begs several questions... Arbusto 07:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it also repeats Gastrich's own whitewash of the incident, almost verbatim, which answers at least one of those questions, I think... - WarriorScribe 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a good chance that Joshua39215, Jack White1 and juicy are actually Gastrich's meat puppet Uncley Davey. He posted in the Gastrich RfC and has a more permanent home at usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs). See the following discussion. i think that all meat puppets should be treated in the same way asGastrich sock puppets although I'm not sure there is a consensus for this? David D. (Talk) 22:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we may want to add to the checkuser requests a note about comparing the various puppets to Davy also. 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC) JoshuaZ 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Bugger. I thought we'd converted him. --Malthusian (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought so too, but we need to consider the possibility that we haven't. I added an appropriate note to that effect on the checkuser page. JoshuaZ 14:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT me, thank you very much. Please see my rebuttal. You will note that Dr Day has also graciously accepted he was wrong, although he has not amended his comments here, which is a bit disappointing. You have not "converted" me in any theological sense, Malthusian, and you have not changed my mind with regards to Misplaced Pages as it was NEVER my intention to be anything other than a good Wikipedian in the first place. What you guys did - I am grateful to you for it, don't get me wrong - was to expain how things work around here. It was never my intention to work against the status quo wittingly. Having said that, you go ahead and do your userchecks with my blessing. I have nothing to hide and your minds will be set at rest. Hopefully after that in the future you will not have an assumption of bad will towards me in the future, just because I happen to count Jason among my friends. Uncle Davey (Talk) 12:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good. --Malthusian (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, the RfC having failed to attract the required number of (provably different) endorsements, it has now been struck out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the talk page get deleted too? Arbusto 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ruckmen

Good god, these Ruckman articles are Gastrich all over again. Deja vu.  ·  rodii  ·  04:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I support what you're doing, but I will say that I don't think you should be marking your reverts as minor. Many people hide minor edits on their watchlists, and the effect is to hide controversial edits from them. It might make you look sneaky.  ·  rodii  ·  04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I'll use that feature more carefully. Arbusto 04:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hi Arbusto,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Misplaced Pages (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.

Firstly, I flat out don't believe that you haven't been using sock puppets lately. Your integrity, as for as I am concerned, is so deeply tarnished that it will take a long while to remedy that to give you the benefit of the doubt. By the way, you openly admitted to sending an army of sock puppets on your talk with "don't expect to be hearing from me, but expect to be hearing from them."
I think the CheckUser is good proof of what I've been saying and you could continue doing more CheckUsers if you like.
I didn't openly admit to sending an army of sockpuppets. You misunderstood what I was saying. I was anticipating that like-minded Christians would come and contribute to articles that were important to the Christian community; partly due to their importance and partly due to the way the entries were being treated.
Secondly, don't you dare claim you are trying to "glorify God" by reverting edits about accreditation on the LBU page, removing quotes from the SAB, removing content from diploma mill experts, ect. Those edits were POV to make YOUR "degree" and your ego more publicly acceptable. You aren't leading others "into a relationship with" God by reverting cited edits of Cornuke's deceit.
As JzG admitted, I made a number of good and valid contributions in areas that were lacking. I don't expect for you to admit the same. However, I did a lot to try and improve the LBU page and some of my work was removed for no good reason and replaced with absurd accusations. Even now, as the article stands, there are a number of incorrect things and absent things that should be there. Too bad for you, the entry, the community, and those who trust it. I don't and more and more others don't, too.
Thirdly, no doubt you feel this place is hostile because you put edits on pages to promote stuff you are selling. It's too bad you equate believers with those who will stand by as you spam articles and you equate disbelievers with those who remove your POV and spam.
No, this place has more people who disagree with so-called "fundamentalist Christianity" than those who do. This place has more administrators that disagree with so-called "fundamentalist Christianity" as well. In fact, JzG says he is against it in a private email that I received. If you can't see how this place is an armpit for factual information and a haven for sensational claims, then go ahead and keep contributing like you do.
I'm not about making money. If I was, I wouldn't be in Christian ministry. Uncle Davey has repeatedly articulated this on Usenet and he's quite right. I could make far more dollars doing other things, but I choose to invest in others because God loves me and I love Him and others. However, I do find that I can fulfill His mission for me and my ministry better off Misplaced Pages than on it.
Lastly, if you are truly sorry then simply stop with the bad behavior and self-promotion. I'd rather see that then get a hollow apology. Yet, its too late for that according to RfA. You have no choice, but to cease and desist your behavior-- the behavior that you have known to be contrary to wikipedia spirit. Arbusto 01:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I already have. I'm not a serious contributor to Misplaced Pages, because we all know I disagree with the "Wikipedian spirit" as it disagrees with the Spirit of God. The Wikipedian spirit knows no grace or truth. It's all about majoring on the minors, writing pages about insignificant blemishes, while omitting important and relevant facts that might paint Jesus Christ, His religion, and His people in a positive light.
Now, don't forget that I came and apologized to you and sought reconciliation. You took this opportunity to lay into me, so I defended myself and told you about how I felt on certain issues. Even though this conversation has evolved, don't forget why I came here and what I said to you. I do not excuse poor behavior, from myself, from you, or anyone else. However, I do not admit to things I haven't done and I do know that among my many contributions, I have tried to be a positive contributor to the community, and some have agreed.
I'm more interested in repairing relationships than trying to sway an RfA or RfC. Besides, I'm not even here posting any more. Why would it matter to me if I were banned? My morals aren't guided by consequences. They are guided by God's Spirit, so that's why I have apologized to you and a few others for past behavior that made some upset. --Jason Gastrich 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop Vandalism

Arbustoo: STOP Vandalizing Wiki Pages! Drichardson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fourth edit ever on wikipedia and its on my talk page. You get a sock puppet tag. Arbusto 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbustoo, You are Vandalizing Wiki Pages!

Arbustoo, you are vandalizing pages, not using proper English grammar, and intentionally misrepresenting others. If you cannot speak fluent English, do not edit English pages. If you are not an expert on a subject, do not edit a page.

Do you use sockpuppets?

Hi Arbusto,

I hope you're well.

I noticed that someone has requested a check user for your account and User:WarriorScribe. They think you're the same person and I must admit that they make a pretty good case.

How do you respond to this? I'm not making any judgments or assumptions, so that's why I asked you directly.

Take care, --Jason Gastrich 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)