User talk:Presenttruth777

Welcome!
Hello, Presenttruth777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --XCainAndAbelx (talk)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

June 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Davidian Seventh-day Adventist has been reverted. Your edit here to Davidian Seventh-day Adventist was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.sighandcry777.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Flag.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Flag.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SR Flag Final A (3).JPG


A tag has been placed on File:SR Flag Final A (3).JPG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ron h jones (Talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Hello, I'm 208.95.51.38. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Davidian Seventh-day Adventist, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for finding sources, but I have re-removed what you added. One of the sources was just a website, and the other a simple PDF that was based on another Wikipedia article. Articles need to use reliable sources, like books that examine Davidian religious beliefs in general or that examine beliefs about the Holy Spirit in general. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources are verified and well known within the Davidian community. Your arbitration judgment is unacceptable--STOP controlling our original article.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We can say the very same thing about you and are willing to take this higher up if you insist. There are arbitrary and false edits that are not helping the article in any way except someone's false idea about the history of this movement. We find this very disruptive as this article as been views tens of thousands of times with NO interruptions for most of 2016 and 2017 until lately. If an edit is truthful of course this is fine but so far of late nearly all deletions and substitutes have been without true historical foundation. We are not doing anything to disrupt as you claim, but to keep this article truthful and without false facts and assumptions put into it.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777


 * If you wish to bring our disputes to mediation, then we can do that. Bring you specific points about the article to the table and let's discuss.Presenttruth777 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777


 * You can do whatever you think is appropriate to do, but the end result, if you keep trying to control this article, is going to be that you are going to be cautioned or sanctioned, and I will not be. That's because I have over 200,000 edits to over 40,000 pages, and I'm clearly not in any way related to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists in any way -- and  you  are.  I'm an editor dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia, and not a partisan of any movement, religion or subject. I will not go to mediation, because that's not warranted, because there is nothing to mediate. I will simply warn you that by Wikipedia policy you cannot control the content of this article.  Period .  And if you continue to try to do so, I will do my utmost to see that you are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia in the future.  This is your only warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a deep breath here. I see your experience which is good for you. However one cannot delete and change article without knowing the "facts". Otherwise it's a popularity and majority game and not a true fact based exercise of writing. We do not oppose good and true and helpful edits and changes to IMPROVE the article such as what Legacypac has done.Presenttruth777 (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777
 * You have already been told by Irondome on his talk page that what I wrote above is correct, so please do what he recommended and follow Wikipedia policy, and stop trying to control the article. You are not the arbiter of what can and cannot go into the article, that will be decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of editors discussing on the article talk page.  You, of course, can and should be a part of that, but you cannot decide, on your own authority, what is and isn't fit to include in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Also, a reminder, that you do not WP:OWN the article Davidian Seventh-day Adventist and cannot control its content. You must discuss content disputes with other editors just like every other editor - you have no special privileges in regard to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also please note that you are edit warring, which can lead to your account being blocked. You have two highly experienced editors working to improve the page, and they will truly work with you to present the most objective, factually-based article possible.  Please keep in mind that Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary ones, and so we may be a bit hamstrung regarding the independent, reliable sources available.  It is likely that you have access to usable sources which will help make this the best article possible, but your personal knowledge (or mine, for that matter) is not usable for an encyclopedia based on verifiable information.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 17:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi, Presenttruth777. You have been asked many times why you refer to yourself (your account) as "we", both on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and on Talk:Davidian Seventh-day Adventist and who "we" are, and also whether this is a joint account for the church itself. This is the nearest you have come to answering such questions. That's not satisfactory. And to say "We are regular individuals and not associated with any particular group", as you do here, is unconvincing. How do random "regular individuals" come to use and control a joint account, if that is your meaning, without belonging to any "group"? In any case, shared accounts are not allowed on Wikipedia. One account is for one person. You — your account — by contrast sometimes talk as if the account does represent the church itself. This is a big problem for Wikipedia, which is why people keep asking you about it. To assist you in taking the questions seriously and responding to them clearly and comprehensively, I have blocked the account indefinitely. You may be unblocked once you clarify the situation below on this page. (You can still edit this page, even though blocked from editing the rest of Wikipedia.). Or you may not be, depending on the circumstances. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC).


 * Fair enough Bishonen. Allow "me" to explain. First when I referred to "we" I am referring to my writing partner (who helped write the original D.S.D.A article) and myself. This Presenttruth acct belongs to ONE person. myself. There is NO group or church involved. If this does help clear the matter, I will look forward to continuing to make the article better, yet STAY truthful. Obviously the purpose of the article is to explain who, what and how the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist are Presenttruth777 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777


 * To be more precise, the purpose of the article is to explain what reliable sources say the DSDA is, not necessarily to present what the DSDA thinks about itself (although that can be covered as well). So if all reliable sources say that the DSDA is "X", but the adherents think that it's "Y", our article is going to say that it is "X", but believers think it's "Y". What our article will not say is that it is "Y", simply because its adherents think it's "Y". If you can accept that definition of "truth", then we can all work together, but if you insist that the article must reflect "truth" as defined by the church or its believers, you're simply going to have to give way to our policies -- you have no choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * First things first. Let's deal with the issue of the accusation of "we" being a group or church. This is patently false and this account--Presenttruth777 -- is just one person, myself. Once this is cleared and we as original authors of the article are allowed to contribute, I am glad to interact with you on the "specifics" of the article. I will say that there has been a ramrod of editing from you and Legacypac of late and some is factual and true and some are not. Much to discuss here but first things first.Presenttruth777 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777


 * As long as you continue to refer to "we", as in "we as original authors of the article", there will continue to be doubt about whether you are a single person, or this is a role account. It's up to Bishonen or another reviewing admin, but I certainly wouldn't recommend you be unblocked at this point, given the ambiguity of your responses.As to the editing of the article, it is proceeding in a perfectly normal Wikipedian manner, with information coming from reliable sources.  Anything so supported will almost certainly remain in the article, whether you think it's "factual and true" or not.  You still don't recognize that your position as an adherent (or adherents) of this religion makes you fundamentally biased about the subject, and less able to judge what is and isn't factual then neutral editors with no axe to grind and no "truth" to uphold. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please show us a Wikipedia rule that forbids the use of "we" when speaking of a position of inclusiveness, yet not meaning more than one person on the user account. Give me the applicable rule to review. Presenttruth777 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777


 * Hey, you're the account that's been blocked on suspicion on being a role account, used by more than one person. If you think it's helping your case to keep referring to the account as "we", by all means keep it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again I am asking for Wikipedia rule advice. Right now it's your ideas that are bandied about. I have addressed this issue clearly and stated that ONLY ONE PERSON has this account. Now, show me the rule that the word "we" is illegal in addressing one's position in the talk pages. Do you have some rule violation that shows this understanding? Right now all is shown as opinions, let's get to the rules. We don't want this great site to be a "I don't like you" forum where personal opinions by the administrators outweigh the rules set by Wikipedia? Presenttruth777 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777


 * I wouldn't be so blithe in belittling "my ideas", since I've been here for 12 years and have a pretty good idea of how things work. In any case, you're clearly not getting what I'm saying, so I'll try one more time, and then you're on your own.You've been blocked.  The reason for the block is suspicion that this is a role account used by more than one person.  Your only possibility of being unblocked is to convince an admin that is not the case, that only one person uses it.  You have stated that only one person uses the account, but you nevertheless continue to refer to the account as "we".  There's no rule against calling an account "we", but that's not the point at all.  The point is that you have to convince an admin that this is not a role account, and by continuing to refer to the account as "we", you undercut your statement that only one person uses the account.Can you understand what I'm saying here?  It's not a matter of rules and policy, except the one against role accounts, and you're doing a really good  job of making it appear that this is a role account, despite your denial. Do you see that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Point of order: is not an administrator, but  is. (I am also, but that is irrelevant). The specific policy is WP:ROLE. The problem is that, although you claim to be editing as an individual, your communication indicates that you are editing on behalf of a group of people. This is also not allowed, see WP:MEAT. I hope that makes it clear what the issue has been. For what it's worth, the opinions of administrators are not weighed more than those of regular editors (particularly established editors such as BMK, who has also earned the community's wide respect), but administrators have been selected by the community to enforce the rules because they have demonstrated a clear knowledge of the rules WP:CLUE and have shown ability to interact with others in a constructive manner. I would therefore dis-recommend disparaging them as a group, and Bishonen in particular, who is one of our most experienced, widely respected admins. If you want to take out your frustrations on an admin, take them out on me (consider that a "get out of jail free" card.) But if you don't listen to Bishonen and Beyond My Ken and Legacypac, I'm afraid you will get further frustrated. Please, listen objectively, and give us a fair shake.   78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 23:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, and thanks also for pointing out WP:MEAT, which hadn't occurred to me as applicable as well. And, no,  Presenttruth777, I'm not an admin, and I hope I never presented myself as such in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And another edit conflict... thank you, User:78.26, I was going to say much the same thing. Not every practice here is codified in policy, Presenttruth; see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You have continued, even after I blocked you, to refer to the person/s controlling the account as "we". It's just logic, not a "Wikipedia rule", to say that you still sound like a group, and that your claim to be only one person is unconvincing. I agree with everything Beyond My Ken has told you; he's indeed an experienced and insightful Wikipedia editor. Your insistence on being given a "rule that forbids the use of 'we'" when you speak for one person doesn't do you any favours; it merely makes you sound like a ruleslawyer.


 * You do indeed have to convince an admin that this is not a role account, and also that you understand that our religion articles are based on reliable sources, not on what is true to adherents of the religion. But you don't necessarily have to convince me, the blocking admin. If you post a formal unblock request below, by adding the text, the code in it will call a different, uninvolved, admin to this page to review it, and perhaps unblock you. I will gladly defer to them. You'd be well advised to read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

Comments above by PresentTruth777 suggesting the group behind that account are not happy with my cleanup edits are unconvincing. I'm working slowly trying to reduce duplication and bring the article to a reasonable wikipedia standard that meets WP:V and WP:NPOV without gutting out all the text. Read WP:COI as well - as a member of the group it is hard to be objective about something you feel so strongly about. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Presenttruth777 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Presennttruth777 -- Let's get down to discussing the issues. There is quite alot of comments put forth which I am happy to address. Let me try and address all concerned. First let me deal with Ken's comments. He says "Your only possibility of being unblocked is to convince an admin that is not the case, that only one person uses it." Ok fair enough, I have said by my word that it is ONE person, and that myself Presenttruth777. If it is that one must eliminate all references to "we" in the talk pages then fine, that can be done from here on out.

78.26 says, "administrators have been selected by the community to enforce the rules because they have demonstrated a clear knowledge of the rules WP:CLUE and have shown ability to interact with others in a constructive manner." Fair enough, as long as we as adults can proceed "constructively" then that is what Wikipedia should be all about--agreed. There has been no disparaging at all with Bishonen, as seen by my comments to him (read above again).

Absolutely all should be given a "fair shake" And I would like the same.That is why we're here to iron out the confusion and misunderstandings.

Responding to Bishonen "It's just logic, not a "Wikipedia rule", to say that you still sound like a group, and that your claim to be only one person is unconvincing." Ok fair enough, now the word "we" will not be used from hence forward.

Lastly to legacypac -- "Comments above by PresentTruth777 suggesting the group behind that account are not happy with my cleanup edits are unconvincing." Unconvincing to who--you? From what is clearly seen you have come in and wholly just about rewritten the whole article. Where's the discussion about this? Let's start talking about it. Now you want to change the name on the article which was a name unofficially used from 1930 to 1942. Then the organization became an OFFICAL group and labelled itself with the name Davidian Seventh-day Adventist. This was/has been the OFFICIAL title for 76 years. This is just one of your edits that you have done with out a fair shake from another experienced point of view. I see you also eliminated historical pictures of some of the men involved in the hearing of Victor Houteff. Now you want to eliminate some current information on what the Davidians are doing today as a group. Maybe there can be a rewording of starting with line 109, but a wholesale elimination of that information? What gives you the right to do this?

Lastly if there is one thing I gleam form this whole episode, that is the editing should be discussed before changes are made. Particularly when it involves main themes or content. The original article as mentioned stood for about 3 years without being changed as to the majority of content. Now legacypac has come on and wants to redo a large portion of it. While some edits appear fine many are not in my opinion. He mentioned already that he has some experience with this organization, yet when asked to discuss that experience he ignored the request. Ken has said he does not know much about this organization but legacypac said he does know something.

I also see that Branch Davidians has a live link under the heading "resulting groups" and all other 5 links have been made dead (just showing the name of group).

Of a quick note, Ken made a good point that a distinction should be made about the Branch Davidians who are distinctly different than the original Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. Infact this was one of the primary reasons for writing the article. There is wide spread confusion among the public especially the 20 million Seventh-day Adventists, between these two organizations.

Again, we can all work together to improve this article but it should be together as a team.The original article should be reverted back and then we can start to discuss what changes would help, arriving at a logical consensus based on facts and history.And yes, most certianly "outside sources" as well.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Presenttruth777

I've had it with you clowns, now there is a new issue raised. But hear this ALL who have had a hand in this unrighteous act of censorship. God will judge rest assured. Presenttruth777 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777


 * There is no new issue raised, the WP:OWNershio is the issue raised at ANi. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Look I'm willing to work with you to ensure the page is accurate and well written, but you need to keep your bias for the group in check. If you see issues with the article post specific recommendations here and I or others with consider them. If you cooperate nicely an unblock can follow. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, what I previously said -- "Again, we can all work together to improve this article but it should be together as a team." I am willing to discuss the article and improve it as always. Ok unblock and let's get it done, fine by me. There are issues to discuss about the current information on the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists and who, what, where they are. This has/is my true goal. Not ownership but factship. No promoting as well, just fact based history and information. As mentioned there is a large amount of misinformation among S.D.A's as to the DSDA. Hopefully this article can continue to provide a clear understanding of this organization as it has since it's inception.Presenttruth777 (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777


 * Does this have any relationship to the fact that the edits of User:Srodinfo (who obviously has a COI in regard to Shepherd's Rod) were just reverted by me as POV, and that they then tried to reinsert them as the obvious just-created sock puppet User:The harvard editor, both of which occurred within the last couple of hours? Suddenly you pop up after being silent for 6 weeks or so and ask for an unblock. Is Srodinfo the other editor you refer to when you speak above about the "authors" of that article, and the other party of the "us" and "we" you constantly referred to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken, I am not involved in other parties doing what they have or have not been doing. Are you serious? Or are you jumping to conclusions against me? This is not right. NO, this Srodinfo person is not one of the "authors" of the original DSDA article. Obviously he is a Srod investigator by the name implication. There are literally THOUSANDS of such people in the world who have an interest in this subject and to claim that I have involvement with a person just because of that name is supposition and presumptuousness. I have dealt with the "we" already and clearly not going to use that term for just that reason--implying a "role" account. So let's not jump to conclusions and continually paint me with your broad brush of accusations. Presenttruth777 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777


 * Yes, I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You are truly sadly deluded my friend. I saw where you blatantly lied that Sroinfo is the "other" co-writer of the DSDA article. Since you mentioned my name to the conversation with Srodinfo I have since spoken to this man and he too is flabbergasted at your false statements. You are nothing but a Wikipedia bully who is pushing your little power around to suit your own ideas. I shall pursue other avenues and deal with a "neutral" party as you have shown complete incapability to deal with this issue fairly or truthfully! Presenttruth777 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777
 * You have "since spoken to this man", who you never communicated with before, right? Pull the other one, you're fooling nobody. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not and have neve been a Davidian/Rod follower but I know some of them personally and I've done significant reading about the movement and its founders over many years. The assertion above that 26 million SDAs are all misinformed about the Rod is clearly the Rod's position since the days of Victor H. That fact is well covered in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to convince mainstream SDAs or others of the corrctness of the Rod view. If there is something specific that is factually incorrect with my edits, point it out - but I believe the thrust of my edits are well within the goal of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Branch Davidians under Koresh are quite different from other Davidians, but the page should reflect that one grew from the other like Lutherns grew from Catholics and Rod split from Seventh-day Adventists. The page accurately reflects that reality. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The "26 million" SDA are not all misinformed, sure. However the vast majority of them are clueless about the true history and the beliefs of the DSDA. Unfortunately the SDA has over the years produced much misinformation about this organization. For just one example, a good percentage of SDA believe that the church purification (which is clearly taught by Ellen White) is Victor Houteff's ideas and that he taught that the DSDA someday will rise up and perform the Ezek. 9 church judgment--false.


 * I'm aware that you have some knowledge of this movement and you also have some knowledge of the SDA as evidenced by your editing of the SDA article. Which was originally written by SDA personnel (no bias huh?). You appear to be someone that I can logically discuss this matter, but as mentioned above, Beyond My Ken is not objective or truthful (ie. making false statements on his hunch rather than knowing the true facts). So until we can remedy this situation with a fair and objective Wikipedia party, I am held back from contributing further. Make no mistake the great God in heaven knows the TRUTH and as such woe to those who hinder or pervert it. This article stood for a long time (almost 2 1/2-3 years) without much editing and there was tens of thousand of views.


 * Granted grammar and even points of view can enhance it but if this POV or addition is not factual to the history or the beliefs as stated within the DSDA then this article can be nothing more than a populist opinion groundless without facts. Let us keep in mind the article had two main objectives-- 1) who, what and where are the DSDA 2) the DSDA are not one and the same as the Branch Davidians. And yes, there should be a acknowledgement of the fact that ONE man, a disgruntled follower (Ben Roden) broke away and started his own organization --BSDSA. Their beliefs are quite different in many aspects than the original DSDA beliefs.Presenttruth777 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777