User talk:E.Shubee/Archive 1

Einstein edits
I am not sure what your goal is here, but I will assume good faith and just let you know that all of our entries must accord with our Neutral point of view policy and our No original research policy. Part of this means that fringe theories are not given undue prominence over mainstream ones. The Di Pretto priority question — which to my knowledge has yet to be published in English in a peer-reviewed source — certainly qualifies as fringe. Please take care to be attentive to these policies. We have had a lot of very crude anti-Einstein editors in the past trying to insert Deutsche Physik nonsense into articles before and are perhaps less tolerant than we ought to be when new people show up and start inserting some of the same old tired claims. --Fastfission 12:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
Your recent edit to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 11:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. MyNam e IsNotBob  07:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
Please review our policies regarding Neutral Point of View and external links. I suggest that you consider editing less controversial articles until you become more familiar with the Wikipedia way of doing things. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to External links, sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. I have assembled a large number of facts, observations and references. Everything in http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill is accurate. Much of it is neutral. Most of it either questions or challenges the inconsistencies, exaggerations and tactful omissions purposely excluded from Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POV, "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official 'Neutral Point of View' policy." My POV, which comes from an immediate and straightforward interpretation of the data, added to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, makes the article more neutral, not less. My POV is that you and the other editors I've mentioned have been duped by a cult of four. --E.Shubee 03:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another reference is Conflict of interest, and since you have previously admitted that you are the copyright owner of the site that you reference, you have a conflict of interest with relation to the link. Ans e ll  05:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has read McGill's theology should wonder how anyone could manufacture such absurdities and believe them. I think it's stretching it to believe that four people believe it. You believe it is plausible with infinite ease. That's because you and McGill share the same kind of religious experience. That's why you haven't noticed that nothing in McGill's article is verifiable and that all his references are circular and self-authenticating. I'm not arguing for a possible revision of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I'm arguing for its complete removal. As explained in Conflict of interest, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of notability is. I also ask that you continue fighting the facts as I have stated them. Resist the truth for all the good it will get you. Please continue on in your support of McGill. It's hilarious to me how so many wikipedia editors can be so completely deceived that they don't have the slightest clue of what they are talking about. --E.Shubee 06:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made mention to this here but will also make note here. 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. -- 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.Shubee 23:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * everythingimportant.org has already been discussed on wikipedia, and declared an inappropriate reference. I am sure you were aware of this discussion, Mr Shubert.  Please respond appropriately to the lessons you have learnt in the past. -Fermion 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your use of Maniwar's "don't have to read it rule" to reject an external link to a relevant article that was written only a few days ago proves that you, like Maniwar, are not qualified to express an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't have a "you don't have to read it rule." --E.Shubee 00:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct it doesn't have the rule you are talking about. It does, though, have an no orginal research policy.  Your page is original research and can not be referenced as a source when you add it to wikipedia. -Fermion 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're using the "whenever you've made up your mind rule." I see no purpose in refuting an insincere accusation because you've already made up your mind using the "you don't have to read it rule." --E.Shubee 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question is poorly referenced.  It cites no print material and references itself several times.  It also violates wikipedia policy regarding civility, encyclopedic content, personal attacks and original research.  As such, I feel no qualms about declaring it be inappropriate for inclusion on wikipedia. --Fermion 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. 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 External links, sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.


 * The point of http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill is that it challenges the glaring inconsistencies, exaggerations and tactful omissions purposely excluded from Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill contains a large number of facts, transparent observations and references. It asks questions about those verifiable facts. Asking questions about verifiable facts in the light of Wikipedia requirements is not original research. --E.Shubee 12:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * E.Shubee, I honestly don't think you get it. As you mentioned, the sources, statements, etc. must be "100% verifiable." Rather than criticizing people, you could point out where your support backing the articles are. Contrary to your rather benighted comment that we did not read, I skimmed both articles and besides citing itself does not provide, as I've forementioned, any reputable support for these sites to be included. I wholeheartedly support Fermion and the other editors who removed your entries because of link spam. Perhaps if you spent the time finding reputable sources to back your charge rather than attacking people on this, your time would have been better spent. Cheers! --13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Simpletons! How long will you wallow in ignorance?
 * Cynics! How long will you feed your cynicism?
 * Idiots! How long will you refuse to learn?"
 * Proverbs 1:22.


 * Please explain why General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists v. Walter McGill, dba Creation 7th Day Adventist Church, Creation (7th Day Adventist) Ministries, Creation Ministries and Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, Creation 7th Day Adventist Church isn't 100% verifiable and 100% reputable. Please explain your blindness in not seeing any links and your sheer bigotry in not reading the references. Also, please explain why Wikipedia, in their bogus and allegedly encyclopedic article, which pretends that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a legitimate organization, is not in violation of trademark law. --E.Shubee 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the WP:3RR Rule 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
E.Shubee, I want to warn you a final time and let you knwo you are breaking the WP:3RR rule. If you don't abide by this warning, you may be blocked or even reported. -- 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Warning at 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. -- 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning of Lawsuit against Wikipedia
Dear Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.,

As a true Seventh-day Adventist, I feel that I must warn you of possible legal action against you by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for violating their Trademark. I'm not an expert in Trademark law, but after reading the powerful and brilliantly written legal brief against one of your editors, a.k.a. Walter McGill, d|b|a Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, I'm certain that you'll agree that the case against him is a slam-dunk and that all his agents, followers, accomplices and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with him (namely Wikipedia) are in big trouble.

I have tried to reason with the lowest in the echelons of Wikipedia editors, those that have squatters rights over the Adventist articles, who exercise absolute and unreasoning dictatorial control over what can be said about the Seventh-day Adventist Church and what is an allowable external link, Wikipedia rules be damned.

I don't think it's fair that an out of control band of apostates, out to promote a single vision of Adventism in violation of NPOV, have the right to decide for you and the readers of Wikipedia that no one is to hear of the unconscionable, unfair and deceptive conduct of Walter McGill, a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, and his violations of federal and state law. The excuses that your managing editors offer are absurd. Please decide carefully between them and me.

Sincerely,

--E.Shubee 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * E.Shubee, again, you keep missing the point. Let's break this down for you. 1) You are being warned because of your continued attack on people such as your remarks above "lowest in the echelons of Wikipedia editors" which goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. You fail to see that you've been cautioned on this numerous times and yet you continue. 2) You fail to provide other souces outside of your personal everythingimportant dot org website with reputable sources. Refute this all you want, but you have not provided sources to fully back both of your websites. 3) Rather than wasting your time and the time of the many users, you should spend it finding good sources to back your edits. I wish you'd take a step back and see that, unfortunately, many times people with 'aparent' agendas ruin the names and cause stigmas to denominations. Your edits are welcome, however, take a look at what you're tying to do. Unfortunately our time has been spent refuting your link spam and could not be spent working on improving the article. Lastly, tread softly when you try to issue legal action especially when you have no authority to do so. I'm sure you can contribut to the wiki community, but then you also need to become part of the community and learn how to go about it. -- 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations, aka, personal attacks
Your edit was neither needed, nor useful. You have been warned many times before, so please stop making personal attacks on other users. Ans e ll 01:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By definition, anyone who invokes the I don't have to read it rule when making a judgment on Wikipedia content isn't neutral. --E.Shubee 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
Legal threats result in immediate userblocks per site policy. The term of this block is indefinite, but I will repost it for review by other administrators. You can post to this page and request to have the block lifted if you wish.  Durova  02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Legal threats result in immediate userblocks per site policy." That's a very interesting statement. I have never thought, said, nor have I ever implied, even remotely, that I'm going to bring legal action against Wikipedia. The link No legal threats is my defense. It states, Making a polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks against you is not a "legal threat".


 * I have been arguing in the best interests of Wikipedia that the article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church should be removed because it violates the Trademark of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that legal action has already started against Walter McGill, a.k.a., Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and in the best interest of justice, that I should be allowed to expose the unconscionable, unfair and deceptive conduct of Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church by adding an external link to The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I have received nothing but extreme opposition from Wikipedia editors in this proposal. See Request for Comment: External links. Can I assume that one of them leveled this charge against me to you?  --E.Shubee 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I issued the block based on the post you made to your talk page. Two other admins responded to my query and agreed it was appropriate (I included a page diff from your edit).  I'll post this explanation on the administrators' noticeboard and see whether this changes anyone's opinion.  If this particular block turns out to be a misunderstanding then we'll reevaluate - in light of other recent problems you'd probably still be subject to a shorter block.  Durova  04:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I view the accusation that The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is spam as unreasonable, and justifying that accusation with contempt, not answering questions, reverts, and a "I don't have to read it rule" as defamation of character. Why isn't that a punishable personal attack? --E.Shubee 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it is an entirely reasonable statement. There is a clear difference between issuing a "Warning of Lawsuit against Wikipedia" and pointing out a violation of WP:EL. As for the statement, you warn that we're in "big trouble". How is that not a threat? Alphachimp 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are reasonably confident that the Wikipedia article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church isn't spam but that the external link The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church probably is?


 * I don't know how to explain my perception of law or encapsulate my sense of Wikipedia's obligations (I have already admitted that I'm no legal authority) -- or condense the meaning or implications of the Church's recent legal posturing (which would be just my opinion), without being perceived as threatening Wikipedia. I repeat: I have made no threats to Wikipedia. I seek no legal action against Wikipedia. I want no legal trouble for Wikipedia.


 * My warning to Wikipedia was from my perception of their negligence: the "I don't have to read it rule." I know the dictionary meaning of negligence: "the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care." . In a sense, with my voluminous postings, the cat is out of the bag and, in the future, Wikipedia might be held accountable by someone other than me. --E.Shubee 18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The trademarks disclaimer is worth a look. We've got separate issues here and one precludes the others, so in order of priority:
 * 1) The indef block - another admin suggested it would be reasonable to shorten it if you retracted the statement.
 * 2) Possible conflict of interest - by that I mean if you're an employee of the Seventh Day Adventist Church or some affiliated organization, or if you have a professional interest in the relevant articles, it would be an act of good faith to disclose the connection on your Wikipedia user page.
 * 3) The external link just doesn't satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. However, other sources such as official church policy statements and articles in reputable newspapers would be acceptable.
 * 4) Mentorship - if you were unblocked it would be a very good idea to have a mentor's guidance.

Really the first issue takes precedence over all the others.  Durova  05:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what I'm supposed to retract? --E.Shubee 06:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 Durova , in regards to point 2 above. The website which E.Shubee insists that wikipedia articles should link to www.everythingimportant.org appears to be administered by a Eugene Shubert, and correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be the same person by name. Among the personal essays on this site is the descriptions of this lawsuit between Mr Shubert and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As such one must consider a high probability of bias in editing. MyNam e IsNotBob  11:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that similarity is one reason I asked this user to disclose any conflict of interest voluntarily. Below I also noted the open checkuser request.  Durova  17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The "I don't have to read it rule"
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN#User:E.Shubee at 04:46, 21 October 2006, Durova wrote:

"New question, User:E.Shubee says that I misunderstood his earlier post. His reasons are complex so here's the diff:[104] Does anyone consider this a reason to shorten the indef block? He should probably still get a block for link spamming even if the threat is a total nonissue.

"Personally I'm skeptical: he seems to claim that the mere existence of a Wikipedia article about a verifiable Christian denomination constitutes trademark infringement, and that his disputed edits protect us from legal action by a third party. Durova 04:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)"


 * I can't even believe this. Has anyone around here actually read the lawsuit against Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists or is everyone following the "I don't have to read it rule"? --E.Shubee 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for respecting my claim that you've misunderstood my earlier post and for saying that my reasons are complex. They are not complex; it's just that I assumed in my writing that everyone would have read the references, in context. --E.Shubee 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Useing the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church" in an article on wikipedia isn't a violation of trademark law. No need to worrie bout the wiki. :) ---J.S (t|c) 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Justice
I hereby withdraw my earlier request that the Wikipedia article be removed. I also retract my previous error in saying that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church lacks notability. In the interests of justice, I ask that the article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church be unlocked and corrected to reflect the verifiable sources, admissions and facts revealed on the page Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability. --E.Shubee 09:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll shorten the block, and I heartily recommend that you join the mentorship program so you'll have someone to answer more of the questions you've posted to this page.  It'll be a few hours before anything changes - I'm actually on my way to church at this moment and want to take a good look at some page histories before I act.  Regards,  Durova  15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unblocking you because this account has never been blocked before. If you haven't already noticed, I've also filed a request at Checkuser.  That request hasn't produced a result yet, so here I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
 * Having done so, I'll share a serious piece of advice: sometimes the subjects closest to one's heart aren't the right articles to edit at Wikipedia. For instance, I never edit World Trade Center or 9/11 because my nearest relative survived that disaster from a high floor.  I joined the armed forces and went to war because of 9/11.  Some opinions that offend me exist in the world at large - opinions that can be documented through reliable sources - and some of the things I know and believe have not been published.  If I had tried to edit those pages, I would have caused a lot of grief and not accomplished much, and it would have hurt reputation as an editor.  So browse some less hot-button articles, maybe the page about your hometown, and look for other ways to improve Wikipedia.  Best wishes,  Durova  01:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week
You have been blocked from editing for 1 week for violations of WP:POINT. It is inappropriate to repeatedly add a hoax template to an article after having formally withdrawn your request to have the article deleted. Be advised that you have also been accused of sockpuppetry. If you edit Wikipedia on any account or IP during this block period it would violate WP:SOCK and result in the block duration being extended. Durov a Charge! 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.Shubee 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Final warning
You are currently in violation of WP:3RR at Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Your current participation at that page amounts to a revival of the negative POV edit warring and the campaign to have the article deleted that led to previous blocks. As a gesture of good faith I'm issuing this warning in place of another block.
 * The inappropriateness of everythingimportant.org as a Wikipedia reference has already been disucssed at length. Continued linking to that site has the appearance of linkspam.
 * The attempt to identify another editor by real world name on a talk page was highly inappropriate.

Given your commitment to Seventh Day Adventism, there are probably some useful ways you could contribute to related articles. Unfortunately the methods you have chosen to pursue so far have been counterproductuve and disruptive. If those methods continue then they will adversely affect your access to editing Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you place a request for mentorship through Adopt-a-user and adjust to site policies and standards. Durova Charg e! 21:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Advice taken. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E.Shubee --E.Shubee 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that. Take it easy on the tagging at the other article.  If you think the other editors haven't addressed legitimate concerns then try opening an article content request at Requests for comment.  Also, when other editors ask for specific quotes in a content discussion, it really helps to provide them.  Regards,  Durova Charg e!  03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit other users comments. Edit summaries are not the appropriate way to conduct a discussion, they should be used to summarise what the edit was about. Ans e ll 06:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have vandalized my userpage. Please stop your flagrant abuse of power. My summary edit here is precisely that. I've summarized my discussion with you (from my point of view) to highlight that the resident editors at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church don't recognize failed verifications when they are clearly pointed out. For the full version, go to Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. My edits at Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church were a mistake that I quickly recognized and corrected in 3 minutes, as the record log shows. I thought I was editing this page. Please assume good will from other editors unless it's obvious vandalism, such as you totally erasing my userpage. --E.Shubee 13:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning about misrepresenting other editors
You have been warned about misrepresenting other editors. Your copy and paste from Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to this page and your user page, followed by your editing of the discussion is not allowed, and is not what you are able to use your user space for. Please do not continue. Ans e ll 10:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that I'm not misrepresenting other editors. Even you admitted that I have a right to summarize opposing points of view. This page clearly states that readers can go to Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to read the complete discussion. You have no right to delete my personal log of my most memorable moments at Wikipedia. --E.Shubee 13:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your "personal log" is not needed, the complete discussion speaks well for itself. If you copy a statement by someone and change it then it is not that person that made the statement, and the discussion is a false representation of that editor as you have left the signatures on without clearly showing what changed. Please do not try to make up a copy again, it is not needed to advance the encyclopedia and is taking more time to deal with it than it is to improve the article in question.
 * Please focus on the discussion instead of trying to duplicate the page in three places without addressing the issues at stake, namely, in two sentences what your claim to a contradiction is. Ans e ll  22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your protest is no longer relevant since realizing that your subterfuge is nothing but obfuscation so I deleted your comments. --e.Shubee 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin steps in
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 do find it quite troubling that E.Shubee altered another editor's comment on an article talk page. If that had come to my attention sooner I would have blocked for it. As it is, I'll add the time I would have blocked for that vandalism to any future block I might apply. Durova Charg e! 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll adopt you
Hello, ! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia! --  T H  L CCD 13:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this whole thing looks like a real mess. E.Shubee, next time you're on I encourage you to come to my talk page and ask me any questions you have about this. I hope that we can get this thing worked out. Cheers, --  T H  L CCD 13:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)