User talk:PaulTaylor7

License tagging for Image:WalterMcGill.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WalterMcGill.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

everythingimportant.org

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you soon find places you can contribute to. everythingimportant.org has been discussed on many occasions, and as always been agreed to be unsuitable for inclusion on wikipedia. Please do not add it to any pages. Again, I hope you soon find ways to contribute to wikipedia. -Fermion 08:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Noted. Will try and use other sources

Initially, all my opposers were confidently unanimous about the unsuitability of the published legal decisions of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Maniwar (talk) denied they were reputable sources. MyNam e IsNotBob called it spam. Persistent defamation often goes a long way but the record shows their complete inability to defend their false accusations. [1]. It's just a matter of time and a very short time at that, when I will be able to declare a complete victory. There is no question that those who take a stand for truth will be found on the winning side. --e.Shubee 20:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is disgustingly deceptive, and is false and I denounce (verb) you bringing this topic over here E.Shubee. As I have pointed out, I again I state that your personal website is not a reputable source and I stick to that. I have never commented on the WIPO site. As I've pointed out on your talk page, Do not twist what I said to fit your agenda. You are well aware that this conversation initiated over on the articles talk page and that I was specifically referring to your websites. I again tell you to not misrepresent what I said, and to again clarify without any doubt, whatsoever, I was/am/are referring 'specifically' to your personal websites as I have previously stated. Like all the other editors, I encourage you to stop this time wasting and opining of yours and be a useful contributor to all of Wikipedia rather than a nuisance. The actual post is found here: [2] under the header E.Shubee link spam 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and one can plainly and clearly see what links I am talking about. Keep this discussion at your talk page and do not blank other peoples pages. --Maniwar (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Please discuss your edits. Do not blindly revert, as the removals were done in accordance with wikipedia policies, and your objections should be given before putting the material back in. Ansell 08:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church:

Your recent edit to Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a bot warning, see my comment on the articles talk page. Ansell 01:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great probing questions at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church

Hi PaulTaylor7,

I enjoyed reading your probing questions at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and made use of your comments at User talk:E.Shubee. I think you'll enjoy reading Proof that CSDA Christian Academy is a Hoax and my answer to Personal Attacks on the same page. --e.Shubee 19:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been proven right!

I remember you not believing my testimony that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is a hoax. You should then find this interesting: It appears that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has admitted in court to only having three members. See Case 1:06-cv-01207-JDB Document 70 Filed 06/11/2008 page 3. Doesn't that prove the central thesis in Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax is true and therefore that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is not notable and therefore should be deleted? --e.Shubee (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]