User talk:Vanished user 324465652435

I didn't... ??? what are you talking about? I used only facts. you replaced facts with opinions! Stop breaking the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthistruth777 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Happy Science. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Happy Science, you may be blocked from editing. DAJF (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you a robot? You don't make any sense? Good faith edit? I simply removed an irrelevant subject about marketing in the controversy section. Nothing is controversial about marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthistruth777 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please remember to sign your comments here and elsewhere by adding four tildes at the end. In answer your question above, no, I'm not a robot. Your earlier edit to the Happy Science article removed sourced material without a clear explanation why, but now that you have explained your reasoning above, it makes more sense, and on reflection, I agree that the statement about the use of an advertising company does not really belong in the "Controversy" section. In future, when making major changes to articles, it's a good idea to provide a reason in the edit summary or even on the article's Talk page. This will avoid wasting time if your edits are reverted unnecessarily. Anyway, I hope this helps. --DAJF (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the good info, you know a lot more about Wikipedia than me. I am just here to stop people from trashing my religion. Truthistruth777 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Truthistruth777

May 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Happy Science. bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Slandering Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is the most heinous crime. You are paving your own path to Hell. Truthistruth777 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Truthistruth777

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to stop your personal POV-pushing, your Edit warring to remove material that you do not personally like, and your Personal attacks on people who might not share your apparent beliefs. This block is only a short one to stop your current disruption, and I hope you will be able to edit in a more collegial manner when it expires - but if not, be warned that future blocks will be longer, possibly indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, your idea of a "fair informational page" is one that presents your religious beliefs as factual, one that omits anything you think is unpleasant or disrespectful even if well-sourced, and you appear to believe it is acceptable to tell those who dispute your version of the article that they are going to hell. Generally speaking, religious believers are usually the least appropriate people to edit articles about their religions, as they frequently cannot stand back and see their beliefs from a disinterested standpoint - and I mean no personal offence, but you are close to being a perfect example of why that is so. I really can't see an unblock happening while you appear not to be able to tell the difference between a properly-sourced neutral article and slander, or between a piece of religious promotion and a fair informational page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I know the difference between properly sourced material from slanderous news reviews by those looking on from afar. As for the assassination thing, that is irrelevant to the article. This was a terrorist act that doesn't belong on this page. Regarding my membership, I wasn't magically born into the organization. I found the teachings, read many books, and decided for myself. I have confidence in my beliefs, but this is not the place to discuss such things. I was just frustrated that sources like VICE news, and newspaper slander makes it into this page. That's like putting Gawker and TMZ articles on a Christian page. Most people would agree that Happy Science is not a cult. In Japan they are the most famous, influential religious organization in the nation. Many of the Prime Ministers have connections to Happy Science, read Ryuho Okawa's books, and indirectly receive advice from Okawa. He is the founder of Abenomics, and is called "the brain of the Abe Administration" in Japan. Even the head of the American CIA knows Okawa, because he discloses valuable information about the world. Many large newspaper companies advertise his books on the front page or near the front, for he is a bestseller. What I am trying to say, is that this page does great injustice to the state of Happy Science in 2016. It is not just a small religion or 'cult', it is a worldwide spiritual movement and religious organization with great power and many million(over 12 mil.) believers. I hope you understand. Thank you. Truthistruth777 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Truthistruth777
 * To be honest, I think that response amply demonstrates my points - but if you think it presents a valid explanation of why you should be unblocked, then do feel free to make a new unblock request and another admin will review it. When your block ends, do not change any articles to state your beliefs as fact - Wikipedia articles should describe what believers believe, yes, but absolutely should not present those beliefs as true. Also, do not edit war to impose your preferred version - when you are reverted, discuss the disputed content on the talk page and seek a consensus. And do not issue religious condemnations of people who disagree with you. If you do any of these things again, I can guarantee that your next block will be a longer one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No that is not true. I did not do any anonymous IP editing.