Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

message: I have protected the article due to a spate of POV editing and some complaints emailed to WP:OTRS. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I put a note on your talk page about the issue. Feel free to ignore it. Ansell 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The claim that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church meets Wikipedia standards is ludicrous. The article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church should be deleted for the reasons listed here. --E.Shubee 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to delete the [[Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church]] entry 

message: To respond to the claims of E.Shubee:
1) Claim: That the links on the page Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church are "circular" and "self authenticating"
I am not sure what kinds of links he would expect about a Church.  Since a religion is by definition a set of "beliefs" and practices, the only way to know for certain what a people believe is to ASK them; naturally, therefore, links that reference the beliefs of this movement will largely be composed of what they have written about themselves.  Mr. Shubee wrongly alleges that Walter McGill (one of the founders of the CSDA movement) is an editor here.  This is incorrect, however certain members of the Church (and again, there are more than 4 of us!) are quite capable of recounting the history and tenets of our religion.
Further, if you look at any of the religion entries on Wikipedia, you will find that the majority of the external links are "self-authenticating," since you cannot scientifically test a religion for doctrinal accuracy. In religion, objectivity forbids editors or commentators from saying whether or not a belief is "bad" or "good," but these beliefs must almost necessarily be described BY the religion's adherents in order to ensure accuracy in reporting.  Wikipedia seems to understand this quite well without Mr. Shubee's input; for example, the Baptist entry begins with these as its external links: BWA Heritage and Identity Commission, Baptist Press, Associated Baptist Press, American Baptist Historical Society, Baptist History and Heritage Society, etc., etc.
2) Claim: "The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Wikipedia entry because the squatting Wikipedia editors 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."
Not only is this a personal attack on both the Church and Wikipedia editors, but it also demonstrates remakable ignorance about both of these.  Walter McGill has never, to my knowledge, posted anything to Wikipedia, and independent editors would have no reason to believe any claims he made even if he did.  If Mr. Shubee has a problem with the CSDA entry, he undoubtedly has it with me, as I am the one who has done most of the recent work on the page.  That the entry is incomplete I freely acknowledge; however, it is not for lack of information or objectivity, but lack of TIME, as our church is currently being sued by the Conference under whose jurisdiction Mr. Shubee operates, and we have to prioritize our resources.  I do intend to continue adding information about our beliefs and the current events regarding the litigation against us as time permits, although I imagine I will have to resort to actually writing what CSDAs say about their own beliefs.  This is in line with other religious entries in Wikipedia, and I trust therefore that this will be seen as reasonable.
3) Claim: "public records indicate that his academy only has three students."
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.  If Churches are going to be taken to task for every attempt at an outreach that did not work out as they expected, we should have much more to say about every system of faith that ever existed, including mainstream Adventism.  The "evidence" collected against the CSDA movement by this editor appear to be a mass of misconstrued and biased snippets from the history of a very young and often-opposed religion.
4) Claim: "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."
This statement borders at least on nationalistic elitism.  The moment culturally ignorant people hear about "Africa" and "Australia," images of uneducated, hut-dwelling bushmen come to mind.  Even pseudo-intellectuals should know better than to make such charged statements as this while attempting to maintain some degree of credibility in a community striving for objective standards.
5) Claim: "That Christians must use the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son in worship."
Even the statements made about our beliefs are poorly researched, and therefore completely wrong.  If this editor had read our statements of belief, which he claims to be capable of critiquing, he would have known that while we prefer to use these names in our personal worship, we do NOT use them exclusively even among ourselves, much less do we say that "Christians" in any kind of general sense must use these names.
6) Claim: "That Christians must keep the New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament."
Also false. We do believe that New Moons are important for a Church's cleansing on a personal and social level, but we do not believe that the Annual Feasts "must" be kept. We believe that they are useful teaching tools, and that those united with the movement in spirit will make every reasonable attempt to attend, but these times are seen more along the lines of a spiritual family reunion than a command from Heaven.
Finally, I am saddened to see that Mr. Shubee would go so far as to threaten Wikipedia itself with the SDA Church's trademark.  This is one of the primary reasons the CSDA movement separated from the Conference in the first place because, if the leaders are unable to convince people of their position (in religion, politics, or law) by discussion and diplomacy, they quickly and unashamedly resort to force, as evidenced by the lawsuit in which we are currently involved.  We do not accept this course of action as Christian, particularly not Protestant, in nature.
I believe that this page represents an important contribution to the wealth of knowledge about Adventism in general and Adventist-related movements, and therefore request that a) the entry be allowed to remain as we continue to add information as time permits, b) that any criticism (we welcome constructive criticism) be of an objective and non-doctrine-driven nature, and c) that we be allowed to pursue our work (at least on this website) without threats of legal action and spiritual damnation. Zahakiel 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons to not delete the [[Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church]] entry 

message: 1. The point about circularity and self-authentication is that Wikipedia requires you to have reliable references to back up your article. You just can't quote yourself. Who else acknowledges your existence? You can't use yellowbook.com. The two most authoritative references that you can use are the first two footnotes of The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. You shouldn't be hiding the fact that CSDA is well known for conduct that is unconscionable, unfair and deceptive. Did you notify Wikipedia that CSDA is breaking federal and state law and that this fact might embarrass them in the future? Don't you think that this would be a polite thing to do? 
2. I agree that this statement wasn't proven but I believe that it can be proven true. Note however that it's not the main point or overriding theme of The Truth About Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church.
3. 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? 
4. You're misinterpreting the sarcasm. Your article says that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a Fundamentalist Christian movement. It is being pointed out to you that four persons do not constitute a movement in the United States in 2003 and that there is no evidence of a Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in Canada and there is no evidence of Creation Seventh Day Adventists in Kenya or Australia.
5. Claim 5 is based on a direct quotation from the Wikipedia article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. "The group's more notable beliefs include: ... the keeping of New Moons and some of the Annual Feasts found in the Old Testament, use of the names יהוה (Yahweh) and יהושע (Yahshua) for the Father and Son of the Godhead in worship."
Beliefs in a context of describing what a religious group believes are understood as required. If you're just listing a bunch of optional beliefs or the practices of the group, then you need to rewrite your article. 
6. See claim 5. --E.Shubee 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

message: 1. Primary sources, ie, the church documents, are not enough on their own. Secondary documents are generally seen in greater light, ie, has someone commented in a published article to back up the claims that you can find in primary sources. This enables the article to be written in a neutral point of view, without bias towards an editors interpretation of primary sources.
Your personal research is not allowed at all. See the No original research policy.
2. I would contend, that, based on numerous lawsuits between Eugene Schubert] and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, that he is not actually acting "under jurisdiction.
4. Thats a joke that we Aussies all live in the bush right? Otherwise I would not have commented on it at all.
6 You are not here to "pursue your work". Wikipedia editors are neutral, and only comment on outside facts. I suggest you review your contributions in this light. Ansell 23:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Zahakiel 

message: Thank you for your statements.
1) Be assured, as many secondary and independent documents as possible will be utilized to verify that which CAN be verified from outside the Church itself.  However, as I pointed out upon reviewing other religious entries, statements about a religion's doctrinal standpoint (specifically) are most accurate from the "horse's mouth."  The Baptist entry references Baptist websites, the Anglican entry references Anglican websites, etc., and I am aware of the "no personal research" policy.  In looking over the article, I don't find any place where a reference points to any members' statements, except for the "history of the Church" that would only be known by founders (myself excluded) anyway, so I think everything so far is in order, pending additions.
2) I am sure he isn't acting on their behalf, and is as much an embarassment to them as to us, that was not the intention of the statement.  I am merely pointing out the likeness of method, and the fact that he is a member of that particular system.
4) None of the Aussies I have met live in the bush... at least not on a regular basis (campers) :)  I realize Mr. E's statement was sarcastic, but it was in extremely poor taste.
6) No doubt.  If you find any contributions from me that appear to present any of the facts about this Church in a biased light, I will certainly revise them.  Thus far, I have merely stated what the history and beliefs happen to be, and have not made any judgements that these are "true," "good," or even "Biblical" in nature; they are simply the things that have happened or are believed by the members.  Thanks again.
Zahakiel 01:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Ansell 

message: 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 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]]

message: I have labelled statements which have so far been unreferenced, including possible weasel words with tags so that they can each be individually referenced. Note that the statements which are non-church related cannot be reliably referenced using church material among other categories of unreliable sources. Also, an investigation of the Undue weight policy may be applicable to some statements. Ansell 00:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I have begun to add references from third-party sources regarding non-doctrinal material and on doctrines when the movement is listed with other groups with similar beliefs (e.g., non-trinitarian Churches). Zahakiel 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding References 

message: I have added a section called "Legal controversy" intended to summarize the legal issues facing this organization, both on and off the internet.  The usual hostile editor has been attempting to split the two issues described into separate sections for the sole purpose of introducing more derrogatory terms in the article than is warranted (the WIPO decision, for example, is quoted verbatim in several places), and has shown himself unwilling to listen to other editors' warnings and advice regarding his contributions.  In order to keep this article as short, but informative as possible, I believe it is reasonable to simply summarize ALL the appropriate data under one heading, and avoid using unnecessarily prejudicial terms simply because one individual happens not to like this Church and its members.  The editor in question has made work on this article something of a trial, at every turn seeking to provide information that is either false or of an inappropriately inflammatory nature.  I would prefer that as neutral a set of terms be used to describe the issues involved without unnecessary "help" from an individual who has already made some serious accusations against this Church, other editors, and myself personally. Zahakiel 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no controversy. The World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center found Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church guilty of misleading consumers. It's a direct quote taken verbatim from their published judgment. No one with any notability says otherwise. --E.Shubee 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Splitting it into two is okay; I just do not want the article to have undue length.  In any event, I agree with the third party alteration; I have removed the now redundant subheading under WIPO. Zahakiel 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The WIPO ruling is clearly against Walter McGill and not against domain names. --E.Shubee 21:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ruling is ON the domain names, as the section heading rightly states. Your alterations have the appearance of pettiness.  It was unnecessary and reflects your personal biases. Zahakiel 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Call on a senior editor to decide. The WIPO ruling against Walter McGill is precise and directly relevant. The title, "WIPO Ruling on Domain Names" is gibberish. --E.Shubee 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not mind if another editor decides it.  I think both are "correct," but that the original is less personally worded.  I disgree that it is "gibberish" since it uses standard English and conveys exactly what the ruling was on.  In addition, the article is about the Church, and not Walter McGill - you seem to believe that one is limited to the other, (and highly dislike both) but that is not so.  The domain names in question were official Church domains, and therefore I believe the first heading is more relevant.  I am not looking for conflict, but I believe entries on Wikipedia should be worded as professionally as possible.  Zahakiel 21:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen, Eugene. I'm the one who changed the title to "WIPO Ruling on Domain Names" (and started the article in the first place). I am not a member of this Church, have never even met a person of this Church in real life, and don't *want* to be a member of this Church. This isn't a conspiracy to give the CSDA Church a good name, it's an attempt maintaining a completely neutral point of view. I don't understand your personal vendetta against these people, but please leave your bias out of the article. Oh, and I changed "WIPO ruling against Walter McGill" because Mr. McGill wasn't introduced before that section heading and the WIPO case dealt with the issue of the CSDA domain names.Camael 21:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Controversy section 

message: I have made an alteration to the wording here: "the emphasis by early leaders on the concept of a continually developing Present truth is not a common factor [between the CSDA movement and the mainstream Church]."  This gives the clearly implied impression that the movement is not interested in developing truth to relate with present circumstances.  In fact, the CSDA movement, in departing from certain developments in mainstream Adventist thought, have only rejected those particular developments, but not at all the "emphasis" on continuing to seek different ways to apply truth - e.g., the Trademark issue currently at stake in the ongoing lawsuit and the New Moon doctrine that is not present (and never was) in mainstream Adventism.
As user Ansell writes, "the Seventh-day Adventist church has always emphasised present truth, by accepting the prior beliefs as are, the church does not fit with mainstream church thought."  This is correct in the specific areas being discussed, (e.g., Trinitarianism) but not at all in such matters as days considered holy, (referenced in the article) and the end time events.  The emphasis on developing doctrine is very much present, as much of the  "distinct doctrines" section should make plain.
The statement fragment now reads, "although what is considered to be continually developing Present truth has not followed the same lines of thought."  I believe this is a noticeably more neutral statement, with no negative implications in regard to what is considered "new light" and what is not, or statements made about the emphasis of seeking new light.  Zahakiel 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinct doctrines have no major differences to early adventism/millerism, thus not providing evidence for the claim of following present truth. I have reworked it to emphasise the 100 year gap between this church being founded, and the doctrines which it professes to follow. Ansell 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would disagree with that; there are a number of distinct doctrines with no precedent at all in Adventism; the sacredness of New Moons, the keeping of feasts, the timing of communions and so on.  The reworking is okay, so far as I have read so far, but the first wording was definitely objectionable by implying that there was no emphasis on development. Zahakiel 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Present Truth 

message: 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) 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's the thanks I get for proving that the CSDA article was an outrageous exaggeration and a hoax. The CSDA article has been up for more than 7 months now, trying to pass itself off as both authoritative and encyclopedic, but there is still no evidence that the worldwide church of Walter McGill has more than four members. --e.Shubee 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources aren't reliable enough for Wikipedia except in special instances such as the biography of the author.  If you do think you've performed good investigative journalism then have a look at WP:RS and related pages and seek a reputable newspaper or magazine to publish your view.  I suggest you discuss the proposed venue with your mentor before submitting so your efforts aren't wasted if some particular source fails to qualify.  Then you could cite that source here, plus have the honor of being a published writer (and a few extra dollars or at least a few free copies of that issue to boot). DurovaCharge! 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: To Ansell: I believe you added the "citation needed" to the phrase, "what is considered to be continually developing Present truth[citation needed] has not followed the same lines of thought."  Other than the differing beliefs that are separate from those of the mainstream Church, what should a reference to that point entail? Zahakiel 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the statement. Couldn't figure out what I meant originally. Ansell 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present truth tag

message: Firstly, please note that this response is intended only to address the trademark issue. I have no opinion and do not wish to express one regarding the dispute over the appropriateness of the link for any reason but the trademark problem listed in the RfC.
This being said, there are several issues there. Firstly, the poster improperly conflates trademark and copyright law-contributory infringement is part of copyright. Trademarks are not copyrights and vice-versa, and there has never to my knowledge been a case of "contributory trademark infringement".
Secondly, this case is still in court. Who is "likely" to prevail is a judgment call, and who will ultimately prevail will be determined by the judge. It is neither appropriate nor necessary for any of us to speculate on the outcome of pending litigation.
This being said, if the site in question does indeed lose, one of the remedies for the plaintiff will assuredly be that the site in question will be court-ordered to cease use of the trademark immediately. This will resolve the issue. On the other hand, should the defendant prevail, the use will have been certified by the court as non-infringing. Again, this resolves any potential issues. Therefore, there is no issue either way-it is for the court to decide, not us, and whatever decision the court does make will resolve any potential problem on our end. Seraphimblade 00:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here via RfC. You know I don't consider myself or any other wiki editor a "reliable source," so until you have a reliable third party source which says the website in question is breaking the law, I consider your testimony that it is, OR. Sethie 16:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment response

message: I'm very certain that the Seventh-day Adventist church strongly believes in the separation of church and state.  Why then is it listed in this article that the CSDA church holds this belief in contrast to the SDA church?  Shouldn't that belief be moved into the "commonly held beliefs" section?
If I get no response to this question, I'm changing it.
(NorthernFalcon 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See reference #10.  The CSDA Church holds the belief that Church groups are not to ever employ the use of civil power in defense of an ecclesiastical organization.  This is seen as a violation of faith.  That standpoint is in sharp contrst to the slew of lawsuits launched in conjunction with the leadership of the mainstream Adventist body.  The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds to the separation of Church and state to an extent, in that it does not wish for certain articles of faith to be legislated, but the degree to which this translates into practice is not at all appropriate for the "commonly held beliefs" section; it was, in fact, the key divisive issue.  If you think the wording in the main article should say something like "total/complete separation of Church and state," that would probably do much to clarify this idea. ◄Zahakiel► 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying.  It makes more sense to me now.  I'm not sure how to convey all of that in a short sentence, so I just did the little minor thing you suggested.  Maybe later someone brilliant can figure out how to convey all that meaning without being wordy.  (NorthernFalcon 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs of the Church

message: The CSDA group has been mentioned in several other articles in the past. I believe most cases have been undue weight, although many of these times it appears to have been an innocent mistake. The history I have discovered of its appearance in other Wikipedia articles is interesting:
===History===
On 4 November 2002, an editor created a detailed article "Millerite". The last section, "Denominations in the Millerite tradition" contained the text, "(Permission is being sought to link or copy an index of Millerite churches)". On the 6th the editor replaced this with a list of dozens of churches: presumably permission was granted from this existing source outside of Wikipedia. [He later told me by email the material came from here.] The material was removed and branched off to form the new article "Millerites". (A redirect was left behind, and the next edit was in 2004 to make into a disambiguation page, and in 2005 was made into an article on the mineral of the same name.)
On 18 July 2003, the same editor cut the list and pasted it into List of Christian denominations. (I would later remove it on 20 December 2007. I then realised that the page does not mention any notability criteria for the list, so I'm not sure if it should have a place there or not.)
The Adventist page started as a tiny stub in early 2002, and later became a disambiguation page. CSDA was added by an anonymous editor on 4 June 2006. There was a "surprising" reordering on 5 October 2006. On 31 January 2007 an editor converted it to a full article, expanding each entry, including CSDA, into its own section. This was no doubt done in good faith, but resulted in very "undue weight" being given to this group. I moved it to the bottom of the "Seventh-day Adventist" list on 8 March 2007, and removed it on 28 August. An anonymous editor replaced it on 14 November, before I removed it again on 9 December 2007, explaining on the talk page it was undue weight.
:Template:Adventism was created on 8 January 2007 by a non-Adventist editor, who added this and other groups on the same day. This perfectly paralleled the "Adventist" page at that time: the same 8 groups were listed in identical order. I removed it from the template on 15 February, explaining on the talk page. An anonymous editor reinstated it on 5 March, before I reverted it the next day.
Nontrinitarianism was added to on  by a church member on 15 September 2006. I removed it on 20 December 2007.
Seventh-day Adventist Church experienced an addition on 3 May 2006, removed on 27 May by an editor accused of sockpuppetry, reinstated by the CSDA article creator on the 29th, and removed on the same day by another editor. This page has been edited a lot, and there may be many occurrences. One is a removal on 13 October 2006. 
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was created on 1 May 2006 by an editor who later claimed independence from the group. It was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2006, and again on 20 December 2007.
Conclusion: References to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church have existed in a number of Wikipedia articles, often staying for months or years. While List of Christian denominations seems very inclusive of content, mentioning it on the other articles is dubious due to "undue weight" or a small minority view. Many of these incidences appear to have been made in good faith, although some others are questionable to say the least, for example the reversion on the template. We must assume it is possible these were made in good faith. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the link to the non-Trinitarian and List of Christian denomination pages.  These are both very inclusive articles, as evidenced by the number of redlinks.  Your removal of the CSDA link was done before the AfD was completed, and there was not a consensus to remove it for notability reasons.  You have said we "must assume it is possible these (additions) were made in good faith," as if some error in judgment allowed a legitimate article to be included in a list of like groups.  I understand the AfD didn't go as you intended, but it seems that having failed in an attempt to remove the article entirely, you're trying to make darn sure as few people find it as possible.  As I said when you informed me about the second AfD nomination, I assumed good faith there.  When other editors began to vote "keep," however, you were quick to make accusations of sock and meat puppetry.  I didn't say as much as I could to that, nor to the many changes you have made to the CSDA entry since that point.  To be honest, I think you've improved the article, and I agree that some sections need to be trimmed... however, you seem willing to misquote policies of Wikipedia in ways that in my opinion now constitute evidence of bias.  For example WP:COI is a behavior guideline, and you attempted to apply it to a content discussion in the second AfD.  Now, you site WP:DUE, which is about content, in an attempt to apply it to the inclusion of the wiki-link in legitimate lists!  Let me repeat that for clarity, undue weight is primarily intended to avoid having one viewpoint over-represented in articles discussing issues.  It is not intended to make discriminate lists exclusivistic.  You yourself seeme "unsure" as to whether or not the notability of this Church merits an inclusion in the list, but you felt free to remove it "just in case."  You seem to feel some responsibility for the Adventist-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's not always healthy.  Long-and-short of it is, if you feel I am in error adding a Christian group to the List of Christian groups, and a non-trinitarian group to a list of non-Trinitarian groups, feel free to take this matter to Requests for Comment.  I assure you I will have much to contribute to that discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no changes to the article, nor any others mentioning this one, during the AFD. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say you made any changes during the AfD.  Perhaps I should have been more specific in my wording (e.g., "before the article was nominated for the AfD and it was closed as no consensus," or some such).  All else I wrote is as it should be read. By the way, I removed the "7 persons" 1999 reference from the lead section.  If you truly feel it belongs there and isn't unnecessarily prejudicial (take a moment and think about that) then please take that to RfC also.  Regardless of what you might be tempted to think re: WP:COI, I assure you that I will stand by any neutral third-party opinions on what should be done on this article.  ◄Zahakiel► 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the number of church members in the lead section, as I consider it one of "the most important points" of an article on an association (WP:LEAD). The source I used was the most reliable one cited by the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm removing it again.  It would qualify for WP:LEAD if this were coming from a neutral editor, and the article was not almost 10 years old.  To avoid getting into 3rr problems and such, do take it to RfC. As I said, I will abide by a neutral party's input, not by what someone who tried to get it deleted thinks is "one of the most important points." ◄Zahakiel► 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Former mentions in other articles

message: On 4 November 2002, an editor created a detailed article "Millerite". The last section, "Denominations in the Millerite tradition" contained the text, "(Permission is being sought to link or copy an index of Millerite churches)". On the 6th the editor replaced this with a list of dozens of churches: presumably permission was granted from this existing source outside of Wikipedia. [He later told me by email the material came from here.] The material was removed and branched off to form the new article "Millerites". (A redirect was left behind, and the next edit was in 2004 to make into a disambiguation page, and in 2005 was made into an article on the mineral of the same name.)
On 18 July 2003, the same editor cut the list and pasted it into List of Christian denominations. (I would later remove it on 20 December 2007. I then realised that the page does not mention any notability criteria for the list, so I'm not sure if it should have a place there or not.)
The Adventist page started as a tiny stub in early 2002, and later became a disambiguation page. CSDA was added by an anonymous editor on 4 June 2006. There was a "surprising" reordering on 5 October 2006. On 31 January 2007 an editor converted it to a full article, expanding each entry, including CSDA, into its own section. This was no doubt done in good faith, but resulted in very "undue weight" being given to this group. I moved it to the bottom of the "Seventh-day Adventist" list on 8 March 2007, and removed it on 28 August. An anonymous editor replaced it on 14 November, before I removed it again on 9 December 2007, explaining on the talk page it was undue weight.
:Template:Adventism was created on 8 January 2007 by a non-Adventist editor, who added this and other groups on the same day. This perfectly paralleled the "Adventist" page at that time: the same 8 groups were listed in identical order. I removed it from the template on 15 February, explaining on the talk page. An anonymous editor reinstated it on 5 March, before I reverted it the next day.
Nontrinitarianism was added to on  by a church member on 15 September 2006. I removed it on 20 December 2007.
Seventh-day Adventist Church experienced an addition on 3 May 2006, removed on 27 May by an editor accused of sockpuppetry, reinstated by the CSDA article creator on the 29th, and removed on the same day by another editor. This page has been edited a lot, and there may be many occurrences. One is a removal on 13 October 2006. 
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church was created on 1 May 2006 by an editor who later claimed independence from the group. It was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2006, and again on 20 December 2007.
Conclusion: References to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church have existed in a number of Wikipedia articles, often staying for months or years. While List of Christian denominations seems very inclusive of content, mentioning it on the other articles is dubious due to "undue weight" or a small minority view. Many of these incidences appear to have been made in good faith, although some others are questionable to say the least, for example the reversion on the template. We must assume it is possible these were made in good faith. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the link to the non-Trinitarian and List of Christian denomination pages.  These are both very inclusive articles, as evidenced by the number of redlinks.  Your removal of the CSDA link was done before the AfD was completed, and there was not a consensus to remove it for notability reasons.  You have said we "must assume it is possible these (additions) were made in good faith," as if some error in judgment allowed a legitimate article to be included in a list of like groups.  I understand the AfD didn't go as you intended, but it seems that having failed in an attempt to remove the article entirely, you're trying to make darn sure as few people find it as possible.  As I said when you informed me about the second AfD nomination, I assumed good faith there.  When other editors began to vote "keep," however, you were quick to make accusations of sock and meat puppetry.  I didn't say as much as I could to that, nor to the many changes you have made to the CSDA entry since that point.  To be honest, I think you've improved the article, and I agree that some sections need to be trimmed... however, you seem willing to misquote policies of Wikipedia in ways that in my opinion now constitute evidence of bias.  For example WP:COI is a behavior guideline, and you attempted to apply it to a content discussion in the second AfD.  Now, you site WP:DUE, which is about content, in an attempt to apply it to the inclusion of the wiki-link in legitimate lists!  Let me repeat that for clarity, undue weight is primarily intended to avoid having one viewpoint over-represented in articles discussing issues.  It is not intended to make discriminate lists exclusivistic.  You yourself seeme "unsure" as to whether or not the notability of this Church merits an inclusion in the list, but you felt free to remove it "just in case."  You seem to feel some responsibility for the Adventist-related articles on Wikipedia, and that's not always healthy.  Long-and-short of it is, if you feel I am in error adding a Christian group to the List of Christian groups, and a non-trinitarian group to a list of non-Trinitarian groups, feel free to take this matter to Requests for Comment.  I assure you I will have much to contribute to that discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no changes to the article, nor any others mentioning this one, during the AFD. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say you made any changes during the AfD.  Perhaps I should have been more specific in my wording (e.g., "before the article was nominated for the AfD and it was closed as no consensus," or some such).  All else I wrote is as it should be read. By the way, I removed the "7 persons" 1999 reference from the lead section.  If you truly feel it belongs there and isn't unnecessarily prejudicial (take a moment and think about that) then please take that to RfC also.  Regardless of what you might be tempted to think re: WP:COI, I assure you that I will stand by any neutral third-party opinions on what should be done on this article.  ◄Zahakiel► 08:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the number of church members in the lead section, as I consider it one of "the most important points" of an article on an association (WP:LEAD). The source I used was the most reliable one cited by the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm removing it again.  It would qualify for WP:LEAD if this were coming from a neutral editor, and the article was not almost 10 years old.  To avoid getting into 3rr problems and such, do take it to RfC. As I said, I will abide by a neutral party's input, not by what someone who tried to get it deleted thinks is "one of the most important points." ◄Zahakiel► 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This article has recently been through a heated AFD, and the editors involved would like third party input as to how to proceed to improve it from here.
See #Former mentions in other articles above, for disagreement regarding this article's mention in other articles and due weight. See the 30 December comments currently at the end of that section, for disagreement about including a statistic of the group's size in the lead. See also #Article improvement.
:Seriously, all it needs is a little more summarization and, perhaps, some more references. Its notability is certainly there (as a lawsuit litigant). It also doesn't need to be any longer unless more material can be reliably sourced. — BQZip01 — talk 03:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the "statistic of the group's size" is not actually included in the sources used at all!  No data whatsover is mentioned about the size of the movement in the Clarion-Ledger article being used as a source beyond saying that a congregation in St. Joseph, TN is "less than 25 people." ◄Zahakiel► 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Article improvement 

message: Substituted at 12:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.adventistreview.org/issue_pdf.php?issue=1526-1998
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503191807/http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Guys-Pastor-Talks-About-Jail-Time-172165261.html to http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Guys-Pastor-Talks-About-Jail-Time-172165261.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is part of the copyright dispute the idea that "Seventh Day" is a totally separate term than "Seventh-day"?  This is not inconsequential in that the mainstream LDS Movement is the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" whereas most of the small offshoot groups render this "Latter Day Saints" rather than "Latter-day Saints"?  This certainly seems minor to most outsiders, perhaps, but can denote large differences, so it should be clarified if CSDA feels it is justified in using the "Seventh Day" rendering and leaving "Seventh-day" to the General Conference, again answering whether this is parallel to the situation within divergent groups originating in Mormonism.  2600:1004:B111:1317:6DE6:FAF8:7B30:E69E (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seventh-day" vs "Seventh-Day" vs. "Seventh Day"