This user may have left Wikipedia. E.Shubee has not edited Wikipedia since February 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Church House in Guys, TN
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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
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?
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
In regards to E.Shubee's personal website, even if a source is added to an article it can be challenged and consensus by many editors over a period of time justifies the removal and exclusion of the sources(s). Many editors have challenged this and so by consensus, the website was removed. This same practice has been used over at Boortz and at President George W. Bush, and Cindy Sheehan, and many other articles. By editor consensus, the personal website will not be allowed. --Maniwar (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
And that's the thanks I get for being a true Seventh-day Adventist and the only editor who cares enough about the Seventh-day Adventist Church to check the sources of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and finding that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was an outrageous exaggeration and a hoax was the only editor courageous enough to say so and also the first editor who respects Wikipedia rules enough to call for the article's removal.
I for one am happy that the article evolved from its outrageous hoax origin to its current status which rightfully states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." This article on the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is truer and better. --e.Shubee23:22, 3 December 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:
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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]
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
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
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm still waiting for my accusers to come forward and explain 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.
^"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)
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
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for violations of WP:POINT, particularly regarding this edit.[7] I cautioned you in a final warning on 19 November to regard that discussion as closed.[8] In my opinion you did merit another user block at that time. Then in an exceptional act of leniency I issued a further caution on 26 November for altering another editor's statement on an article talk page. In that post I noted that the time deferred would be added onto any new block you might merit. You have since received an additional final block warning for personal attacks and disruption and been un-adopted by Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user.
You now have one month to study Wikipedia's policies and the relevant explanations you have already received - not merely whatever brief passages seem to support your thinking - but the material in its entirety. In particular I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing because the patterns of behavior you display place you in serious peril of a community siteban. DurovaCharge!00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
All my previous chats with administrator Durova has led me to believe that she{verify} is only responsive to whining and crying and couldn't care less about the logical reasoning in the issues that I've raised [9][10][11]. I see no justice in the obviously superficial reading of isolated statements, in the careless judgment of my accurate summary of events, or the fairness in refusing to address all my sincere presentations of logic and evidence. I also see no justice in the block since, as far as I can tell, Durova has not demonstrated any familiarity with the intricacies of my reasoning. --e.Shubee05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
Administrator has shown exceptional patience with this user. Editor has a history of confrontational edits here. Please use this month to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. -- Yamla16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Since this editor challenges my administrative competence and logical reasoning, the reviewing editor may find it informative that this week I received the Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning award[12] and the Barnstar of Diligence[13] in connection to a different investigation. I stand by my block of E.Shubee. DurovaCharge!16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
As someone who has attempted to mediate the dispute between E.Shubee and his opponents, I must say that I support this block as well. In my opinion, he is the instigator of the dispute, and the main antagonist. While the others try to remain civil and follow policy, he commits personal attacks, doesn't AGF, and tries to play a victim who has been denied justice. I support this block with all of my being, and I hope that E.Shubee does use this time to read and try to understand Wikipedia policy. This is my opinion, and I hope that this block is upheld. -- THLR22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mediation is impossible when the mediator avoids the central issue: I believe that Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoaxcontains neutral and accurate material not already in the article and qualifies as an external link [14][15]. My accusers find the facts that I've assembled intolerable and want to censor them. As I have said before, I'm not satisfied with one word accusations like "spam" and WP:OR. I believe that the article merits unambiguous criticism. 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. Why can't the supporters of the CSDA hoax either admit "There is no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members" or produce notable and verifiable evidence to prove the contention that "The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Fundamentalist Christian movement"? This is so simple yet all my accusers seem powerless or unwilling to respond. --e.Shubee13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
That wasn't the core issue, and you need to be able to see that. The core issues were the personal attacks that you were throwing around. If I could get you to the point that you would stop making attacks, then you would be able to work towards a solution without my help. I failed to reach this goal. -- THLR17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I support the block. It is completely irrelevant, E.Shubee, what you think is the issue. You were blocked for violating WP:POINT and for modifying other editors comments. -Fermion01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
There is documented evidence of you changing and deleting user comments [18]. I know you quickly corrected it, a fact that Durova I think is aware of, but you can't deny having done it.
It does not matter how severe other the attacks of other people are. You have been blocked for personal attacks. I consider it your responsibility to acknowledge that you have made personal attacks and for you to focus on your behaviour and how you can go about amending your behaviour. -Fermion03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have already explained what I was doing, the innocence of the mistake and how quickly I saw the error and corrected it. The accusation, repeated by you, that I am guilty of "altering another editor's statement on an article talk page" suggests that I am guilty of attempted fraud. The insinuation is unjust and malicious. --e.Shubee04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Your accusations against Zahakiel and everyone else are irrelevant to this discussion. This appears to be an attempt on your part to change the subject in order to confuse us. Please stay on subject. -- THLR03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't referring to that part of your statement. I was referring to this statement, "My accusers are far guiltier of the charge of personal attacks than me". That is completely irrelevant to this discussion, and seems to be an attempt to change the subject, pass the blame, and play the victim. -- THLR04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
In response to the discussion about editing other users comments, I would like to point you to the ban in place by Durova. The ban includes time for altering other users comments, as per [20]. I recognise that you quickly corrected your mistake. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that your current ban includes time for altering other users comments. -Fermion06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
This editor appears to have placed special trust in a source that fails WP:V and WP:RS. A week ago I explained to him how he could get similar information published in a reliable and encyclopedic source.[21] If Mr. Shubee's main interest is in having this material republished at Wikipedia, then he could use this month to write an article and seek a better publisher. That would be a far better use of his time than continuing a talk page thread about an unblock request that has already been declined. DurovaCharge!15:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I want to know if User:Yamla has a right to modify my comments when those comments of mine originally pointed to evidence in my defense. See [22]. Is there something shameful about my evidence? On 05:04, 8 December 2006 I wrote,
"All my previous chats with administrator Durova has led me to believe that she{verify} is only responsive to whining and crying and couldn't care less about the logical reasoning in the issues that I've raised [23][24][25]. I see no justice in the obviously superficial reading of isolated statements, in the careless judgment of my accurate summary of events, or the fairness in refusing to address all my sincere presentations of logic and evidence. I also see no justice in the block since, as far as I can tell, Durova has not demonstrated any familiarity with the intricacies of my reasoning." --e.Shubee16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
In order to be perfectly fair I've introduced your challenge at the administrators' noticeboard.[26] Please respect the user block while it remains in place and post only here to your own talk page. Other administrators will probably visit and weigh in with their opinions. BTW yes, she is the correct pronoun when you refer to me. DurovaCharge!22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I haven't had an opertunity to review the entire "case" as it were, but something sticks out as being relivent. Your comment...
"All my previous chats with administrator Durova has led me to believe that she{verify} is only responsive to whining and crying and couldn't care less about the logical reasoning in the issues that I've raised [20][21][22]."
...to me to be very insulting. When you add an unblock request to your page your asking uninvolved administrators to review the block. If your request is phrased in an aggressive and insulting manner then your likely going to have your unblock denied or ignored. However, if your unblock request politely acknoledges what you did wrong and offers an apology then it is much more likely to succeed. ---J.S(T/C)22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, the first step to getting unblocked is realizing that you have done something wrong. Look at how many people have supported this block. Do you have any idea how rare it is to have this many people comment about one block? You also need to look at how many people have said that this block should never have happened. Thus far, you are the only one. When everyone else is against you despite the fact that you have presented your evidence that they are wrong, it is time to question whether or no you are actually right. -- THL23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am not challenging the unblock request review. I am only questioning the appropriateness of User:Yamla tampering with my response so as to effectively hide the evidence that I pointed to. --e.Shubee23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
I expressed that point at the administrators' noticeboard. If other editors choose to comment on the block itself or other elements of the unblock request, that's their decision. DurovaCharge!23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
User:E.Shubee, it looks like this supposed removal of evidence was simply accidental. You will notice the edit in question also removed a link to User:Durova's page and replaced it with just the plain unmarked up text "Durova". This would happen if someone had copied and pasted your text from the browser into the edit box, rather than the underlying wiki markup.
In fact, looking at it more closely, the unblock template actually produces a preformatted decline request for admins to use, which has exactly that fault. So there is nothing to question here, other than that a template might be slightly broken. Morwen - Talk09:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's your POV. According to Adventist News Network, nearly 1.5 million Adventists left membership during the time period 2000 to 2005 and that for every 100 coming into the church, more than 35 others decide to leave. That is a relevant, informative, encyclopedic fact! --e.Shubee03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The fact that a discussion is taking place on these topics and your edit was reverted and you were again asked to allow the consensus to take place, your edits appear as POV and vandalism. You have been invited to participate in the talk page, but to ignore that and revert or edit whimsically is not lending to the article. The fact is not being disputed, your edits are. --Maniwar (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think you have a WP:COI and should step away from these topics. You have an agenda and all your edits cause strive rather than community spirit. I encourage you to walk away and regroup. Take warnings from the many editors who have given you tips on this very page. --Maniwar (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
E.Shubee, you no longer come to this topic with a clean slate. You've been edit warring where the consensus has gone against you. If you think that's a false consensus then the onus is on you to bring in uninvolved opinions by some method such as an article content WP:RFC. You would be wise to walk the straight and narrow path on Adventism-related topics because I'm not too far from proposing a community siteban for disruptive editing. I'd rather have you here contributing productively so consider this your heads up. Please adjust to Wikipedia site standards. Respectfully, DurovaCharge!23:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Respectfully Durova, you have misinterpreted the facts and in the same way that you've misinterpreted before. There is one difference. If I have the time and am granted the opportunity and if you care to listen, I will then explain exactly where and why and the facts you have overlooked. --e.Shubee16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome to explain what you think I have misunderstood. Bear in mind the outcome of your last unblock request: as long as I had given you the benefit of the doubt and encouraged you to adapt to the site you deemed my understanding good enough to quote to other editors, but when I finally issued a month long block you decided I had misunderstood. The community support of that block was resounding. Typically, the priorities you have articulated have not been the same priorities by which this site is administered. I welcome your explanations. If you doubt my judgement you may initiate a thread at WP:AN to request additional review.
Bear in mind that if you find this unsatisfactory you also have the right to create a forking website - perhaps an Adventism wiki - and run it according to your own standards. All material at Wikipedia is GDFL licensed so you may reproduce it at no cost as long as you credit the original source. From what I've observed over the last several months that may be the simplest and most pleasant solution for everyone. Respectfully, DurovaCharge!16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
(outdent)I'll elaborate on the above: in most cases I've seen that ended in a siteban, the editor demonstrated a sincere and devoted interest in some particular subject. Whatever the interest - whether it was that person's religion or graduate level geometry or Australian professional wrestling - that editor attempted to participate at this site according to priorities that could not be sustainable as general principles: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:CIVIL, WP:VANDAL, etc. were (according to the disruptive editor) fine for everybody else, but that editor believed he or she had a more important mission.
I have some sympathy toward that perspective because I could have turned out the same way if I'd made different choices when I joined the project: I don't edit World Trade Center or 9/11. My uncle survived that disaster from a high floor and I joined the armed forces and went to war because of that day. I leave those articles alone because I wouldn't be a good collaborator there. This site has 1.6 million other articles that don't push my hot buttons. I heartily recommend you follow my example. DurovaCharge!18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Durova, Regarding your comment dated 23:48, 5 February 2007, you wrote that I've "been edit warring where the consensus has gone against you." I don't believe that that is a fair representation of the facts. You also said the onus was on me to bring in uninvolved opinions by some method such as an article content WP:RFC. That's exactly what I was trying to do! Here is the dispute and request for comment as I have recorded it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy on 5 February 2007:
*Dispute: Is it right for a single editor to suppress an invitation for discussion on an active disagreement by deleting the ((Unbalanced)) tag over a disputed section of the article Seventh-day Adventist Church? Please read the talk page starting at section Developing Consensus – Critical websites to the end of the page. 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In this same context, user Tonicthebrown also put a notice on the external links section notifying interested readers that the subject was under dispute but Maniwar deleted that also and also charged Tonicthebrown with vandalism. What are those notice tags for if not to advertise a current disagreement and to request input? How is Maniwar contributing to the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia?
If you were to read the entire dispute carefully, it's not even my argument. User 1christian wanted several critical external links added to the main Adventist page. At first I disagreed with him saying that the links weren't notable but he persuaded me that they were. At the time I believe most said that they would support the links on the main page if they were incorporated into a paragraph. I made a good effort at writing a suitable paragraph. The discussion didn't go in that direction because of Maniwar and his rude and uncooperative tone toward 1christian, Tonicthebrown and myself. Those are the plain, incontrovertible facts. --e.Shubee02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
E.Shubee, please get your facts straight. 1) First off, I removed the links, not Tonicthebrown, and I called for consensus discussion to take place on the talk page and Tonicthebrown edited my post as he did yours. You, at first, were reverting the removal of the links and adding a very biased paragraph to the article before consensus was even reached. The tone was strong yes, but it was because you, at first, were not waiting for the consensus to run it's course. 2) You were trying to bring into the discussion a totally unrelated and unnecessary topic dealing with unfairness in the Creation Seventh-day Adventist article. I reminded and pointed out that it was not relevant to the discussion, was not related, and that you needed to cool down with that article (see comments above as well). 3) You are discussing two totally different things. The fact that your tag {{Unbalanced}} was removed by MyNameIsNotBob because, as he pointed out, there was no discussion about the tag on the talk page and a consensus discussion was currently taking place. This has nothing to do with me as you are trying to portray, although I do support MyNameIsNotBob's comments and rvv. Please have your facts right before offering a distorted defense. I would encourage you not to bring the Creation Seventh-day Adventist article into every discussion you have on Wikipedia, and to stop from turning your talk page into some shrine about how you are right and the rest of Wikipedia is wrong when they don't agree with you. --Maniwar (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
MyNameIsNotBob was clearly wrong because I was talking about the imbalance of the article with Tonicthebrown. And what special Wiki privilege gives you the right to delete Tonicthebrown's notice of there being a dispute about the external links when even you admit there was such a dispute? You exploding at me when I posted my WP:RFC and threatening me to not contribute and your browbeating Tonicthebrown for posting a notice of dispute at the external links and calling it vandalism is clear proof that you wanted the issue decided by the smallest number of editors possible. That's not the Wikipedia spirit of fairly and sympathetically working with others toward achieving a respectable consensus.
Your manipulation is also strongly evident in the way you assembled the Consensus comments. You quoted an outdated opinion of mine, conveniently ignoring the fact that I had listened to and was persuaded by the evidence presented by 1christian and that I had changed my mind in his favor. I still agree with 1christian. He said, "Contributions should be from more than one viewpoint." User V-Man737 also agreed with that. He said:
As for including opposition, let's have a balance. The fact exists that there are objections to things that the Seventh Day Adventist church teaches. It's a religion, welcome to reality — people will object to everything. On the other hand, let's not make mountains out of molehills (am I using that cliche properly?). It is sufficient to note that there are objections, to list them and provide references or a few external links, and then leave it alone. People who come to the article looking for good points in the church will find them; people who come looking for negative points will find them. Most of all, I hope that people who come looking for facts, referenced and unbiased, will find those. Let me know if I am unclear in anything I've said. V-Man73709:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That was 1christian's major argument and I don't believe it was refuted. Yet you quoted V-Man737 in your list of Consensus comments as if V-Man737 agreed with you on the major dispute. The isolated "Consensus" comment that you listed from him and gave such prominence to only concerned your unrelated side argument with Tonicthebrown. The rest of your accusations are irrelevant. --e.Shubee17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It amazes me how you consistently read past everything said, miss the points, and you pick and choose only what you want to see. Clearly we will not resolve anything here, but I will go on record stating that you still need to learn wikipedia policy. I could easily break apart everything you just said and show you how wrong you are. I also pointed out above, and again you missed, that I not Tonicthebrown called for resolution. Tonicthebrown edited my consensus call to make it seem that he did it. Like one of your posts, he edited my post and because you are unwilling to see this, look here [27] and here [28] to see how he edited my post. Here is the original post [29] before Tonicthebrown edited it. Now, having said that, any editor, moderator can go and follow the discussion and see that consensus was developed. Everyone agreed it needed to be changed, and the vast consensus, granted only by one or two, was to remove them. I stand by my statements that your edits continue to cause strife and 1)your edit bypassing the consensus, 2) bringing in the an irrelevant and unrelated topic of Creation Seventh-day Adventist, and 3) your autonomous edits bypassing the consensus was wrong. Go back above and read what I said, and again get your facts straight. Durova, and many other editors caution you and I second their cautions. Please edit something that doesn't bring out all this passion and learn policies before editing. Lastly, try to refrain from distorting facts to fit your agenda. --Maniwar (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, E.Shubee. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:CSDASeal.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:E.Shubee. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I'm not saying it isn't a misleading/fringe organization, but the controversy itself is notable and the ensuing legal issues only make it more notable, not less. — BQZip01 —talk04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
"...2 of out the 3 church members of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church are also editors..."
This is an interesting side note, but the article itself has nothing to do with this. This is a behavioral problem, not a problem with the article itself.
"...they are so very passionate about "their article" that they won't tolerate anyone else inserting any truth that might tend to detract from their very elaborate hoax"
Please provide some diffs to show evidence of this.
I understand your concern with regards to the creation of hoaxes, but even hoaxes are notable. I think it is quite clear how minuscule this organization is and how influential it isn't. That it is involved in a notable dispute with a larger, much more notable organization makes a simple background of the institution apropos. I don't see anything on the page that violates WP:V or WP:FRINGE. — BQZip01 —talk02:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not that I expect you to admit error, or even keep my post here or (possibly even) give a polite and thoughtful response, but once again you have misread the documentation because a misreading is more beneficial to your ridiculous claims. That document speaks about the "Church" in Guys, TN - the congregation. You conveniently miss the part right below about the other Church in Canada, and the extensive documentation in the website literature about the difference between a baptized member and those who fellowship with the groups without formal membership. And for legal purposes, of course, this only counts the established congregations, not the various individual members (such as myself, my wife, and a number of others) that fellowship in homes. At this point, I'm not expecting much by way of honesty from you, but I would very much prefer it if you at least made an attempt to accurately report what you read. I certainly don't want any casual readers of your page to get the mistaken impression that you know what you are talking about without some kind of challenge to your "facts." You aren't benefitting anyone, especially not yourself, by continuing to try to show that the Church, well attended by my family and friends, isn't there. ◄Zahakiel►00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your 3-member Church in in Guys, TN and your alleged "Church in Canada", Africa and Australia is fully and properly addressed in Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax. The Court didn't investigate any 3-member church in Canada. The judge simply repeated McGill's claim of an associated church being there. What does the court document say? Allegedly, "[McGill's] church has three members. There is a second three member church associated with his, which has the same name and is located in British Columbia, Canada. In addition, there are other congregations that the Defendant 'raised up' in the United States, which have been apostatized, or diverted from the faith." There is no mention of any associated congregations in Africa and Australia. --e.Shubee (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please don't keep re-adding YouTube links to Gary Null. YouTube is, at best, a highly questionable source for any article. It's particularly inappropriate for a biographical article. Please take a look at our policy on biographical articles, including the section on sourcing; YouTube clips don't meet the bar. MastCellTalk04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at [[Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/GA1]. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Seventh-day Adventist Church, you will be blocked. . I am placing this here because there is a current discussion on Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church which you are refusing to wait till the discussion has run its course and the editors come to a consensus. So far, the leaning is against your edit. Please consider this a warning and await the consensus vote. --Maniwar (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-2007-05-15T23:14:00.000Z-Image:CSDASeal.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-15T23:14:00.000Z-Image:CSDASeal.jpg){kind=link}