:::::: I removed my last reply. This was not worth a response. [[User:Zahakiel|Zahakiel]] 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I removed my last reply. This was not worth a response. [[User:Zahakiel|Zahakiel]] 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
==Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax==
I'm still waiting for my accusers to come forward and discuss why [http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/ Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax] fails to qualify as an external link. I'm not satisfied with one word accusations like "spam" and [[WP:OR]]. I want my accusers to go on record and say, sentence by sentence, which sentence is [[WP:OR]] and why, which sentence is spam and why, which sentence is false and why, and which sentence passes [[Wikipedia:External links]]. According to [[Wikipedia:External links]], sites should be linked to if they ''contain'' neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
I also ask that all the arguments of my accusers against [http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/ Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax] be studied carefully. For example, at [[User:The Hybrid/Dispute]], and this is the way I see it, Zahakiel appears so extreme and biased against the light that he has already proven himself intolerant of even being quoted accurately. --[[User:E.Shubee|e.Shubee]] 13:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists believes that Walter McGill, a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, is ruining the reputation and good-will of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Therefore, the General Conference has filed for a restraining order seeking to prevent McGill from deceiving the public by using the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and any name similar to Seventh Day Adventist Church. 1. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has ruled that Walter McGill is “misleading consumers” and has registered and is using domain names protected by a Seventh-day Adventist trademark “in bad faith.” 2.
Pastor Walter McGill claims to be spearheading a great movement. Where is it? The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Wikipedia entry because the squatting Wikipedia editors (3, 45) that control the Adventist pages as if they were their very own, believe in the claims of Walter McGill but only because he refuses to follow Wikipedia standards, claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist, and has no spiritual discernment.
Principal Walter McGill's business address is listed as Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and Academy (6) and public records indicate that his academy only has three students. 7, 8, 9. I wonder if there's any false reporting going on there. We're just talking about his own kids, right? How old are they? The picture of his church prominently displays a big flashy sign but it's doubtful that his church and side business is larger than the average repair area at a typical gas station.
McGill claims to have a sister church in Canada but his website there has no pictures of a church or even a Canadian church address and phone number, just a bunch of links to his main website. 10. Sure, McGill says that he also has church members in Africa and Australia, but they all live in the bush and it's virtually impossible to verify their existence.
The Official CSDA Logo
Check out crossseach.com's listing for The Association of Creation 7th Day Adventists. 11. It says, “The unity of this voluntary association of sister churches in the United States demonstrates to mankind that God so loved them that He sent His only Son into the world.” Who was motivated to lie like that for Walter McGill? CSDA has no association of sister churches.
“In speaking of his church in December of 2003, Walter McGill, a.k.a., Pastor Chick, on an internet forum for reform-minded Seventh-day Adventists, affirmed that “We have total, at the moment, 4 baptized members in the U.S, among others who profess but have not yet been / been able to be baptized.” 12.
Walter McGill believes:
▪ That his group has achieved complete victory over known sins.
▪ That the Seventh-day Adventist church is Babylon.
▪ That he has a mandate from God to call true Adventists out of Babylon to join his organization.
▪ That the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is issuing the mark of the beast, thus fulfilling Revelation 13:16-17.
▪ That Christians must use the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son in worship.
▪ That Christians must keep the New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament.
Request for Comment: Rejection of Wikipedia policy
This is a dispute about not knowing the difference between supporting Wikipedia policy and purposely overlooking Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability to favor an obvious hoax. By hoax, I mean, "something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage." [1]. 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
If this article is a hoax, it is probably one of the best executed hoaxes I have ever seen. Why would a fictitious denomination have such an expansive website? MyNameIsNotBob07:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four persons and a prominent sign on a converted gas station do not constitute a denomination.
What constitutes an expansive website? How large must a website be to satisfy Wikipedia's standard of notability?
There are twelve references used to support Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, none of them even mention a Canadian Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Having a website listed at http://members.tripod.com/torah_zealots/sacred_names/ doesn't make the listee famous does it? If there is no mention of Creation SDA notability anywhere, how do you rationalize the lack of notability? According to Wikipedia policy, a Wikipedia article must be verifiable. The truth is, I am being harassed just for pointing out that there isn't even a verifiable physical address or picture of the disputed Canadian Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. --E.Shubee20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you agree that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was formed in 1988 [2] and had only 4 members in December of 2003 [3] and there being no objective evidence of notability (other than lawless activities, incredible delusion and marvelous deception), can we agree that your movement is going nowhere really really fast? --E.Shubee17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand the context. I said, "Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability." But the article isn't written that way. The hoax in the current article is that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church presents itself as a legitimate organization. The facts are that they have been sued for their illegitimacy. --E.Shubee17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, all my opposers were confidently unanimous about the unsuitability of the published legal decisions of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Maniwar (talk) denied they were reputable sources. MyNameIsNotBob called it spam. Persistent defamation often goes a long way but the record shows their complete inability to defend their false accusations. It's just a matter of time and a very short time at that, when I will be able to declare a complete victory. There is no question that those who take a stand for truth will be found on the winning side. --e.Shubee20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that Wikipedia was a contest... "declare victory?" "Winning side?" For the record, various editors denied (and continue to state, as do I) that your page referencing the WIPO decision was spam-like and clearly biased. Nothing was ever stated to be wrong with the decision itself. Zahakiel18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is false and I denounce (verb) you bringing me into this E.Shubee. I stated that your personal website is not a reputable source and I stick to that. I have never commented on the WIPO site. You are not an ultimate source on this and you honestly need to take the suggestions given. Step back from these topics for a bit, calm down, and move on. I have not even looked at this for a month and I'm still being dragged into it by you. ----Maniwar (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said, and I quote, "I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited." See the next section.
The effect of your testimony was that I didn't have and wasn't citing reputable sources. The facts are that I had cited many reputable sources. In effect, you misrepresented me and the truth. That's a warning to all. Next time you get an urge to defame someone and wish to comment on insightful information, try reading the content first. --e.Shubee11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not twist what I said to fit your agenda. You are well aware that this conversation initiated over on the articles talk page and that I was specifically referring to your websites. Do not misrepresent what I said, and to clarify without any doubt, I was/am/is referring 'specifically' to your personal websites as I have previously stated. I wish you would listen to the advice offered and step back and cool down. It's interesting that you only saw one thing out of all I said, which you then misconstrued. I'm done with this and the record will speak for itself. Like all the other editors, I encourage you to stop this time wasting and opining of yours and be a useful contributor to all of Wikipedia rather than a nuisance. ----Maniwar (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The actual post is found here: [4] under the header E.Shubee link spam 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and one can plainly and clearly see what links I am talking about. --Maniwar (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dispute about not knowing the difference between spam and legitimate Wikipedia content. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC) --e.Shubee11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
So what prevents you from understanding that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has no references whatsoever, other than those which are circular and self-authenticating? It cites no print material and references itself several times. Yet you feel no qualms about Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church not passing the standards you set for me in a Wikipedia article.
Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions. The standard of external links is much different. Wikipedia:External links doesn't say that an external link has to reference printed material, be encyclopedic, be 100% neutral or even 100% verifiable. The format and content to the external links of Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly shows that one-sided points of view are justifiable. As I've pointed out before, according to Wikipedia:External links, sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
I am coming in new to this and see that your edits and inclusion of your personal website is infact POV. There are no reputable sources to back any of these supposed accusations up. As I've mentioned, anyone can throw up a blog and claim to have information, however without any reputable backing or proof, it is just ones opinion. Please refrain from including the link spam in the article. I want to warn you that you have also broken the WP:3RR and I do want to warn you that you risk being blocked. Please be sure to adhere to the rules and policies of Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your criticism of the two pages at issue that you haven't read, which contain links to reliable sources that you haven't read (and, evidently, can't even see), proves that you're not qualified to express an opinion. --E.Shubee23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally label them as Link Spam because 1) These have not proven to be reputable sources and 2) They act more like a blog of this Walter McGill. There are no verification of facts to his charges and no reputable news sources are cited. I deleted them because anyone on the internet can throw up a blog, but that does not make them a reputable source or even a source for that matter. --Maniwar (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do I see an agreement here between the renegade, unincorporated Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and apostate Adventists, in fulfillment of a prophecy by Ellen G. White?
Confederacies will increase in number and power as we draw nearer to the end of time. These confederacies will create opposing influences to the truth, forming new parties of professed believers who will act out their own delusive theories. The apostasy will increase. "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). Men and women have confederated to oppose the Lord God of heaven, and the church is only half awake to the situation. —Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Book 2, p. 383. --E.Shubee09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Attack Warning at [6] 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC). This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. --Maniwar (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Actually, I am protesting the removal of four valuable links, not two. The External Links should look as follows:
The current section titled Cult status at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, where the Seventh-day Adventist church is accused of being a cult, is not written in the usual accusation/answer format and displays no rational response to the charge. The statement about "allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists" isn't referenced and the current response, which is also not referenced, that the schools of the cult "are open to all" doesn't refute the charge of being a cult.
The current section reads as follows:
Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.
In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like[1] . For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.
Others class Adventism as an unorthodox Christian denomination, including, for example, John Whitcomb, Jr.[2] Allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists, and the importance placed on Adventist education for children are also major allegations of what is colloquially thought of as cult-like behavior. In their defense, Adventists respond[dubious – discuss] that their educational system is designed to instill character and faith in their children; indeed, Adventist schools are open to all.
In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."[3]
I propose the following improvement:
Cult status
Disputes have arisen among counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult.
In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cult-like.[4][1] For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier 1955 classification of Adventism as a cult. Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very opposed to Adventist teaching. Although he later reversed this opinion and belief and later expanded his position in his 1960 book-length treatment, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism.[5]
Richard Kyle, an evangelical Christian writing from the perspective of a historian in his largely uncritical book, The Religious Fringe: A History Of Alternative Religions In America, seems to take a middle of the road approach and writes of Seventh-day Adventists as being somewhat cultic:
"Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination.
"This study will regard Seventh-day Adventism as a sect. To be sure, they possess some cultic characteristics."[6]
In defense of the great majority of Seventh-day Adventists it should be pointed out that Ellen G. White, the recognized prophetic voice of Adventism [7][8][9][10], has responded to the charge of cult-like behavior of the church in a humble apology:
"The remnant church is called to go through an experience similar to that of the Jews; and the True Witness, who walks up and down in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, has a solemn message to bear to His people." Selected Messages Book 1, p. 387.
"My brethren and sisters, humble your hearts before the Lord. Seek him earnestly. I have an intense desire to see you walking in the light as Christ is in the light. I pray most earnestly for you. But I can not fail to see that the light which God has given me is not favorable to our ministers or our churches. You have left your first love. Self-righteousness is not the wedding-garment. A failure to follow the clear light of truth is our fearful danger. The message to the Laodicean church reveals our condition as a people." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 15, 1904.
Many Seventh-day Adventists are quiet about Ellen White's prophetic assessment of the church. They are eager to join the Christian mainstream. In contrast, historically conservative Adventists confess being Laodicea[11] and are thankful that they differ doctrinally from the majority on biblical orthodoxy. They see agreement with mainline Christendom on all points as an invitation to damnation. Seventh-day Adventists teach that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."[12] --E.Shubee17:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel words
The section titled "Cult status" at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church uses weasel words to suggest that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has repudiated previously trusted revelation or fundamental beliefs in order to change ecumenically. There is no evidence of this. The weasel phrase states, In describing their opposition to ecumenical changes, some Adventists refer to Ellen White, who wrote that "Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven."[13] --E.Shubee04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism
I'm interested in Theological subcultures of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and wish to add an interesting and related historical fact to enhance that section. A very notable writer in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is Ellen G. White. She wrote of seven distinct kinds of Seventh-day Adventists, but not in one single reference that can be cited easily. A concise compilation of sample characterizations of those seven distinct groups from her writings would be interesting and informative. Is there is a way in Wikipedia to create a special reference page that could be cited in a link instead of adding many quotes directly into the article? --e.Shubee17:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are seven distinct kinds of Seventh-day Adventists in the writings of Ellen G. White. Instead of just citing the references, which would be a minimum of seven, which are mostly books, and characterizing those references, I wonder if I can make a special reference page using a special template in Wikipedia, if such a thing exists, and actually quote the all the statements explicitly on that one special page. So I wish to do more than just list seven references. --e.Shubee19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anything like that being done before. I'll ask on the help desk. I'll respond after I get an answer. Cheers, -- THLCCD19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Principal Walter McGill's business address is listed as Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and Academy (6) and public records indicate that his academy only has three students. 7, 8, 9. I wonder if there's any false reporting going on there. We're just talking about his own kids, right? How old are they?"
2. On 20 October, 2006, Zahakiel answered:
"The academy existed for just a few months in a very rural area of the United States. There was a lack of interest, and it effectively closed down."
3. Later that same day, e.Shubee replied:
"Thanks for clearing that up. Did you notice that the source given in the three footnotes for CSDA Academy come from The Official Web Site of the State of Tennessee? Those records list the private schools in Tennessee and cover the school years 2006-7, 2005-6 and 2004-5. If you don't have the software to view those files, I recommend the open source software called Open Office. It's free at http://www.openoffice.org/.
"Do you care to guess why the state of TN has you on record as a school when you're not? If CSDA applied for state recognition or whatever, don't you think that CSDA should set the record straight with the state?"
There were no responses to those questions.
4. On 26 November, 2006, I read probing questions at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church by editor PaulTaylor7. I then visited the official CSDA Christian Academy website from a link he provided—a page I never noticed before. A caption on that official CSDA page says,
"2006-2007 School Year Voluntarily Suspended Because of the General Conference Lawsuit. Rationale: The Plaintiff General Conference has asked the Court for a "preliminary injunction." If such an injunction is ordered by the Court, the academic endeavors of the Academy would be inconveniently interrupted. The time and energies required to defend this cause is a significant factor as well. Please pray for us. Thank you."
How do you reconcile that quote with Zahakiel's previous testimony? In other words, how can a school year be voluntarily suspended this year, due to a lawsuit filed this year, if the school only existed for a few months several years ago and effectively closed down several years ago? --e.Shubee07:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The school had been "effectively closed down," in that there were no enrolled members for a significant period of time. The school remained open for applications for prospective students until the administrators suspended the school year in 2006 to focus on the lawsuit. This is proof that the Academy is a hoax? Zahakiel18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the more questions you answer the more obvious that hoax becomes. Would you like to bury yourself even further? Then just continue answering questions. How many hours a week on average do the CSDA "administrators" spend on handling applications and inquiries for a school that has "effectively closed down," from parents who live locally who are interested in supporting McGill's Christian Academy so that they can send their children there? --e.Shubee13:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than answer the continued personal attacks that overtly and repeatedly insinuate I am a liar, I will just tell you (as I have always told you) the truth: I live in Florida. I don't live in either TN or Canada. I have never had occasion to ask how many "hours" the administrators of an Academy in another state spend time doing anything; you have both the means and the apparent interest to discover these things for yourself (I would assume currently no hours, due to the suspension, I would assume very few before due to the limited number of students that have enrolled there). Based on your previous statements, however, I do not find it unreasonable to conclude that improper factors are preventing you from directing your questions to the appropriate individuals in an appropriate manner.
But I am curious, Mrs. Shubert; what would possess a man to make statements like "would you like to bury yourself further?" while currently being examined on the charge of making personal attacks? This seems, well, disingenuous, don't you think? Regardless of what you may think of my theology, or me personally, I have nothing against you, and would like to see you becoming a productive member of this site if that is at all possible. Zahakiel15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"On the contrary" to what? I did not say anything in my last post that is contradicted by the link you have provided - though I notice that you did not include my follow-up statement in the quotation on the page. That is your personal website, of course, and you don't have to be neutral, fair or honest on it; your site is not my concern (but if you keep linking to my user page like that, you just might make me notable at some point - thanks, I guess?). It is also not my concern if you do not understand the difference between being effectively closed due to a lack of enrollment and an official suspension due to non-student factors as the page you cloned accurately states - would you really have been more satisfied if I had specified "actively existed" instead? I don't think I can accept that idea at this point.
In terms of Wikipedia, which IS my concern at the moment, "boohoo hoax" is not going to pass a NPOV or non-weasel-word muster any more than anything else you've emanated about this topic recently - and it seems to be getting worse. I suggest you take the strong recommendations of the other editors and leave this matter alone for the moment; it is clearly getting under your skin and forcing you to make unreasonable, hostile, personal, and self-destructive (from a Wikipedian point of view) utterances. A cursory scan shows that you have received 2 or 3 "last warning"s for personal attacks, and the great patience extended to you so far by the administrators has apparently done nothing to cool your temper or invoke some virtue in kind. Zahakiel22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is Pastor Walter McGill's Elaborate Boohoo Hoax. McGill is crying about having to voluntarily suspend the current school year and blames it on the General Conference. To encourage belief in this far-out exaggeration, McGill posts pictures of his academy empty of students. The truth is McGill's academy never had students, as you have honestly affirmed. It must be discouraging to pastor a forsaken and desolate church that practices cyber-terrorism, which is hard to accept, and to be the principal of an empty, uninhabited church academy that no one is interested in. I think it's even more pitiful that McGill uses weasel words to promote his delusion and, as if they prove something positive and reassuring, has some sort of illogical confidence in his many pictures of signs and banners. --e.Shubee00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax
I'm still waiting for my accusers to come forward and discuss why Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax fails to qualify as an external link. I'm not satisfied with one word accusations like "spam" and WP:OR. I want my accusers to go on record and say, sentence by sentence, which sentence is WP:OR and why, which sentence is spam and why, which sentence is false and why, and which sentence passes Wikipedia:External links. According to Wikipedia:External links, sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.
^White, Ellen G. (1999) [1888]. "The Final Warning". The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate. p. 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origdate= and |origmonth= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^Walter Martin Interview, Adventist Currents, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, 1983, conducted by Douglas Hackleman.
^"Prophetic Basis of Adventism". Part 8: On the Road to Righteousness, Adventist Review, June 1-July 20, 1989. Retrieved 2006-10-03. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
^White, Ellen G. (1999) [1888]. "The Final Warning". The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate. p. 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origdate= and |origmonth= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^White, Ellen G. (1999) [1888]. "The Final Warning". The Great Controversy: Between Christ and Satan. The Ellen G. White Estate. p. 607. ISBN 0-816-31923-5. Retrieved 2006-06-06. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |origdate= and |origmonth= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
My userpage, most notably, "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute," is a highly sanitized version of Archive 1. It would be wrong to destroy the archive or delete the gist of my recent dispute. I have a right to display my version of the debate, which is an accurate and very gentle summary of the record. These are very important and memorable comments to me and questions about the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church are still open for active discussion. I just posted one. Another questioner of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church wrote very recently, "If a reliable source is not found to substantiate the existance of this movement in a very short period of time I will nominate it for deletion. None of the current sources substantiate the existance of this movement." (JBKramer 16:43, 17 November 2006). PaulTaylor7 wrote, "As I see, this wiki page is becoming an advertisement for their movement and not an unbiased source of factual information." (26 November 2006).
I suppose the debate is still open on whether or not Walter McGill and a few supporters, judged guilty of misleading consumers, constitute a movement. I grant that they have notability. I deny that they are a movement. I've made this statement before and there is no controversy about the actual facts:
However, there is no credible evidence proving that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a movement. What reputable source claims that? Aren't you amused that Zahakiel has abandoned his claim of having church members in Australia? Have you noticed that he hasn't proven his claim of having a church in Canada? Are you aware that Zahakiel still refuses (or is still unable) to provide a simple physical address for that alleged Canadian church? That's asking for far less than providing a reputable source and he can't even do that.
In conclusion, the complete record, which reveals your utter contempt for my opinion, gave me the right to describe your arbitrary judgment as "purposely overlooking Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability." I also had the right to protest your unkind and unprofessional actions, which I found militant and extreme. --e.Shubee16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"No one with any notability says otherwise." Please do not make personal attacks. Ansell 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
E.Shubee, I'm not going to go into whether or not what is on your page really are personal attacks, but that isn't how your user page should be used. User pages are for getting across what you edit, and what POV you edit from. They are not for commenting on other user's editing habits or skills. It would be best for all involved if you would remove the comments in question, as well as anything else questionable. No one is asking you to destroy your talk page archives, but please keep any disputes that you have with other users out of your user page. This isn't a threat, but people have been banned for less than what you have on your page. Cheers, -- THLCCD11:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, to help with the issue being discussed here, it is precisely statements like "Aren't you amused that Zahakiel has abandoned his claim of having church members in Australia?" that gets this user into trouble so often. There is nothing neutral about that mindset, and certainly nothing "amusing" about it; further, the facts of his statement are incorrect. The declaration about Australian members was in the article when I first found it; I did not originally make the statement, I did not overtly support it, and I have never abandoned any claim that there are members there. I acknowledged merely that the belivers are "scattered," and do not worship in a designated building set aside for this purpose in other countries. To deny that the CSDA Church is a "movement," however, after a number of 3rd party sources (including an interview with a number of members in the The Clarion-Ledger, a daily newspaper), appears to me to be an extremely uninformed (and I can't see how it is anything but deliberate) position. Zahakiel18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E. Shubee, I'm going to blank your user page aside from the user box saying that I adopted you. It is your user page, so if you want to revert me you are within your rights. I'm doing this to get your attention, as you seem to have been ignoring these comments. Please respond, as I am simply trying to get this worked out. -- THLCCD22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that Pilotguy reverted you because he's aware that MyNameIsNotBob had already protested about my user page and the admin DurovaCharge! had responded to his complaint, saying, "Editors do have considerable leeway about how they manage userspace. The copy/paste here ought not to duplicate the actual signatures of other users as if they had posted here themselves, but otherwise I don't find it particularly objectionable (unhelpful perhaps but allowable)."
I apologize for not thanking you before for your help in checking if there was a special Wiki way of building a reference page whenever it's necessary to quote a lengthy array of statements to support one fact.
I had to work today and fulfill other obligations so I wasn't able to respond to your posts as quickly as you expected. I didn't mean to give you the impression that I am always able to reply rapidly or that I had ignored your recent comments. You wrote, "User pages are for getting across what you edit, and what POV you edit from." I saw that comment this morning and was able to give it some thought today at work. I received a great idea on how to follow that advice to the letter. It will improve my user page tremendously but I'll need some time to get it done. --e.Shubee02:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. While you're working on that, could you remove the questionable statements? They are indeed personal attacks, and as I mentioned before people have been banned for less. -- THLCCD11:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're on. Please remove the statements, or at least tell me why you don't want to. I'm trying to be nice, but as your adopter I have signed up to tell you what Wikipedia policy says about this. Please, at least respond. Your edits are showing up on my watchlist; I know you're here. -- THLCCD11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to find something else to comment on for now. Your position is not to be an arbitrator on what parts of policy are specifically wrong with a certain statement or set of statements. Your position is to gradually improve the page without disrupting wikipedia to make your point. Ansell 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's be clear about this. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia policy and I had the right as an editor to provide evidence that a hoax was being perpetrated by an alleged member of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and sustained by editors that refused to read the evidence that I had compiled. --e.Shubee11:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. You have been warned multiple times and asked not to attack other editors or degrade them. Your constant mis-representation of Wikipedia editors is also becoming a blight to this encyclopedia. -- User:Maniwar16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
