User talk:Ahnan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Ahnan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Facts?[edit]

May everyone know the full facts. NCC can't hide forever. Keep it up Ahnan! Thanks for incorporating other materials exposing the truth about the church. I have been doing this almost everyday for the past month but NCC has been persistently removing any undesirable materials that they do not want the public to know about. They are such a farce! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.78 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir,

We thank you for showing interest in the NCC Wiki entry. We noticed that you have been reverting entries pertaining to our Senior Pastor that had no basis of truth. We asked that you would stop reverting the entries and start contribute out of goodwill for the Christian community and also for the Wiki community.

We (the New Creation Church Web Team) will continue to monitor this Wiki Entry faithfully and will perform necessary action to revert what is not true on this article. We apologise if it is rude to you in any way and we will be constantly seeking a Christ exalting solution to this situation.

We also like to welcome you to attend one of our church service, and all information can be found in our official website: www.newcreation.org.sg, and should you have any question or prayer request, we would love to meet you face to face and be a support to you the best way we can.

We love you, because He first loved us, and we will be praying for you and may Daddy God bless you abundantly above all you could ask or think.


God bless you richly, NCC Web Team Nccwebmaster (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ahnan,

Thank you for the reply. We do not in any way say that this wiki belong to us, we are sorry that our message to you have in one way or another given you an impression on that. We agreed that you have every single right to post anything on this wiki, and as much as any other wiki. We believe you have every right to believe in anything you read/percieve and we totally respect that, as Jesus has paid for that right.

As mentioned that we continue to seek a Christ exalting solution to this situation and has reported to a Wiki Administrator on this wiki entry. And we will let them make the final call as you have stated correctly in your reply that it is only right that you post what you believe is correct.

We thank you for continuing contributing to the Christian community and this Wikipedia, and may Daddy God bless you even much more to come.


Blessings, NCC Web Team

Nccwebmaster (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding with other users[edit]

Regarding your exchanges with the user above, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a battleground, to discuss the ethics, motivations, or morality of those with whom you disagree (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith), or to "call out" anyone on those similar points. I would also like to recommend that you read the essays Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Nccwebmaster evidently has an agenda, and we are capable of addressing that within the guidelines and policies set forth for this site, as User:Smartse did here and by responding to your WP:AN/I report here.

Thank you for your assistance. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize if I came on too strong at [1], I didn't realize you were new. If you have any questions I will do my best to help. I'll be watching this page so you can respond here if you wish. Cheers! Mishlai (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ahnan (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing[edit]

Hi, you should probably read WP:OUTING - you're not allowed to outwardly ask if editors are a certain person - ideally we should try and prove a COI through edits and perhaps suggest that people may find useful info if they google something. I admit that this policy can make it difficult to discuss COI - I wasn't aware of it until recently. I can fully understand why it is in place though. If you realise you've made a mistake you can get the edits permanently removed by emailing someone at the address found at WP:OVERSIGHT. You may wish to rephrase your comment on User_talk:Tanlipkee to be less accusing and perhaps a little more friendly - i.e. ask straight out whether they have a COI and if so what it is; you could also suggest that if we know what it is that we will be in a better position to judge their contributions. Smartse (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, have just rephrase my comments to User_talk:Tanlipkee... :)

Ahnan (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Creation Church[edit]

Hi there, Ahnan: I read in the text on the talk page of the article that you had found somewhere in one of the reports that Prince had denied making a high salary. (The comment was to the effect that one of the other editors had only shown us part of a "report" and not the part with the negative information.) Your comments seem to have come just recently, so I am not sure if you have located something previously overlooked, or if this is a part of what we cannot find reliable sources for. If it is the former, could you please show us exactly where the text is? I have re-read the Sunday Times interview and can't find it. Perhaps it is in another source. I have also suggested that someone check non English sources in Singapore news. Perhaps there will be more coverage in them. Thanks for your help. It is almost 1:00 a.m. here and I am going off-line. I will look at this again tomorrow. // BL \\ (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Prince's denial has always been inside The Straits Times' article (http://admpreview.straitstimes.com:90/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2f0e3114209cc110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=016fe84edfbf8110VgnVCM100000350a0a0aRCRD) :

Mr Prince, who is executive chairman of the church council, also dismissed the rumour that his salary is $50,000 a month.

It could have been $50,000 if I had not voluntarily taken all the pay cuts through the years. There was a system of payment that would actually enrich me greatly but as the church grew, I refuse to accept that system of payment.

In Singapore, a salary of S$50K a month is very high if you consider the fact that the median monthly household income in Singapore in 2008 is only $4,950 (a household means typically you have 2-3 person working in)! Ref: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s15.pdf Ahnan (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just goes back to the problem that to consider it a denial, interpretation is required, and that we are not permitted to do. Thank you for answering the question, though. I didn't want to miss anything. That quotation is still in the article. // BL \\ (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. There is no need for us to "consider" any denial. Prince said so himself in the article. "Mr Prince..... also dismissed the rumour that his salary is $50,000 a month." meaning he denied receiving $50,000 a month. Ahnan (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Prince has made a true statement. We can't get around that; it is true. Just because I/you/we/anyone think this may not be "the whole truth", it is nonetheless, true exactly as it stands. We have quoted exactly what was reported and the reader can draw his/her own conclusions about the validity, in this context, of what he has said. WP is not an ivestigative newspaper; it includes what reliable sources have said. And we have done that.
I would like to see your view on my current proposal about looking for other guidance on WP policy. I would also suggest that User:Tanlipkee's affiliation is a matter of record now and he has not inserted anything without a valid source that I have seen or deleted anything with a valid source. (If you know otherwise, with respect to the current material in the article, then please speak to that instance.) You might consider that your assertion that you will be including as much negative material as you can find sources for is an equal, if not greater, conflict of interest, and that your contributions may also be subject to additional scrutiny as a result. I would also suggest that you turn your attention to the actual edits, and away from who makes them. You are at risk of losing credibility if you don't focus on the content and not the editor. You are also a risk of being accused of a personal attack, with concomitant sanctions against such behaviour. Please, let's work on the article content. // BL \\ (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but prior to my reporting of NCC's conduct to the COI board, that was what they were doing, deleting stuff without any regards for other people's views. I guess now that other wiki editors are coming in, they are now behaving themselves a bit more. My coming here to edit Joseph Prince's entry is to serve the public interest. There have been much negatives said about Prince and prior to me coming here, they were not reflected in the entry. What I'm doing here is to serve as a watchdog and counter weight to those NCC fellas. Whether they are in cahoot together or not, I don't know. But one thing is certain, they would probably be focusing on all the positive stuff of Prince to write, since Prince is their spiritual leader. So under this context, the readers can judge for themselves if I'm credible or not. In my view, by projecting both the postives and negatives of an issue, the readers would have a better rounder view of it. Since the NCC fellas are taking on the positives, I decide to take on the negatives. I don't see anything wrong with that and I'm sure readers would welcome seeing some negative views of the issue rather than just hearing all the good stuffs of Prince. Wouldn't you agree with me, BL?
As for being "tough" on Tanlipkee, my purpose was to warn him not to delete other editors' writings (esp the negative ones) without first discussing. This was what his predecessor was doing. Now that Tanlipkee appears to be more "subdued", I will likewise change my attitude towards him accordingly. Ahnan (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Tanlipkee was not a party to the COI infractions, nor can I find any such infractions in the current article. (Please do direct me to specifics if I have overlooked something.) However, your negative commentary on Tanlipkee is current. I am pleased that you are about to change all that. I am hard pressed to find any "positive" in the text of the article as it now stands, keeping in mind that merely not being negative is not the same as being positive. I, for one, am looking to state verifiable facts in a neutral fashion. WP can and should describe negative or positive events in a straightforward way, without editorializing either "pro" or "con". I have made these comments, and the ones above, in case you were not aware that your credibility, having been judged as you have noted upon what you write, might look suspect. // BL \\ (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Whether my credibility is suspicious or not, I shall leave it to the audience to decide. But I can tell you this. After the news broke about Prince's salary which conflicted what he said on 5th Oct to the press (NCC people may not necessarily agree with me), to the majority of Singaporeans, Prince's own credibility is in question. The bulk of the Singaporeans share my views.Ahnan (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Both you and User:Tanlipkee have done something supportive for the article in general in the past 24 hours, and not just to support your own point of view. I think this is a huge step forward. (Ahnan, you noted that I had deleted something, probably in error, that was supported by the NCC website's text. Tanlipkee last evening pointed out that My Paper/AsiaOne was a traditional news source and thus likely quite an acceptable source for Ahnan's note about the size of the outcry.) Now, if only we can convince User:Event24 to come to the Talk page first, we will be a long way ahead. Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3in1kopitiam forum[edit]

I am not a member of the 3in1kopitiam forum, and I am not interested in the discussions that are taking place there. Nevertheless, I was told that there have been some discussions about me in the 3in1kopitiam forum, and that there is even a suggestion that involves my employer. I wish to state clearly that my involvement in Wikipedia editing is a purely private matter. It has nothing to do with my employer. Please do not get my employer involved. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3in1kopitiam is a free forum. Anyone can say what they like or they don't like. If you want to refute anyone there, feel free to post your rebuttals there. Unlike NCC members, we don't anyhow remove postings of others. We let the forumers' postings speak for themselves. Ahnan (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't confuse Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia, with online forums. Wikipedia is NOT a platform where anything goes (please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX). Wikipedia has attained its level of reputation and credibility because unlike many forum sites and blog sites, it does not allow participants to freely post unsubstantiated views, wild accusations and libelous claims. Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines where editing and behavoral standards are concerned. With regard to editing, neutrality and verifiability are the unshakable principles. According to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, any unsourced, unreliable and libelous material can and should in fact be deleted or revised by a responsible Wikipedia editor. Please read WP:NEUTRAL, WP:V, WP:BLP.Tanlipkee (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say I was going to freely post unsubstantiated views and wild accusations on wiki? Are you implying that I'm doing this so as to undermine my credibility on wiki and hence, remove all Prince's critics from wiki? Unlike your NCC fellas hiding under names and telling everyone that you guys are "neutral", I don't. I'm not a hypocrite and from day one, I've already made known my stand on Prince. I tried to be honest about it. You made a complaint to me about 3in1kopitiam and I replied that 3in1kopitiam is a free forum for people to express their views freely. I wasn't talking about wiki. And I've told you that if you felt your "reputation" has been "slighted" in 3in1kopitiam forum, feel free to go in there and defend yourself. Just like in the court of laws, people in there can also make accusations and defend themselves with facts and evidence. Rest of the forumers will decide who is right and who is wrong. Ahnan (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I am only concerned with the content of the Wikipedia article on NCC. And with regard to that, I suppose we are agreed that the decisions should be made by the Wikipedia editors and administrators. The fact is I did not complain about your forum. I only decided to post a message here because I learned that you have considered contacting my employer about my involvement with Wikipedia, so I thought I should remind you not to overstep the boundary, and to leave my employer out of the picture. I reiterate that I am not interested at all in participating in any discussion in your forum. Tanlipkee (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Hi Ahnan, I tried to e-mail but I see you've not added an address to your preferences. Would you mind e-mailing me instead? I'm slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnan, would you e-mail me, please, at your earliest convenience? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you already. Ahnan (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Hinn & CHC[edit]

Hi Ahnan, I know that you wanted to put controversial articles regarding Benny Hinn and CHC. However, I find it irrelevant and absurd. Certain articles dated back Nov 2006, Dec 2006, Feb 2010 are absolutely not involved in CHC. They took place outside CHC and were not related to CHC. I know that you want to expose CHC's link with Benny Hinn, so please re-word them correctly if necessarily.

I was thinking of making a complaint against you; however I could not do that as I am not familar with ways of how to make a report to Wikipedia moderator. ~ kimberry @ 9.58pm, 6 April 2010 Singapore Time Kimberry352 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I read Wikipedia help for article dispute just now. I realise that since you have added a big controversial article about Benny Hinn and CHC, I should discuss with you on it before deleting it. My apology.

The articles (dated on Nov/Dec 2006, Feb 2010) might be applicable to CHC wiki page; however, according to these articles, it does not mean that Benny Hinn's actions have affected CHC's association with him. I know that what Benny Hinn's actions as described by these articles are seen to affect CHC's reputation...Like not all of the people in Singapore do not trust in him and CHC.

I wonder why you are against megachurches like CHC and NCC. To add controversial things about Benny, I shall be alright as long as CHC is relatively involved in the controversial articles that truly exists. (Sorry for my weak English. Hope you understand what I mean. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ahnan for Benny's offtopic controversial articles[edit]

It is okay to reveal the truth and facts to the public; however both CHC and Benny Hinn have to be in same topic. If the topic of both CHC and Benny Hinn are indeed same, then it is ontopic. Otherwise, it will be irrelevant. Like "Ministry Watch", "Do You Believe in Miracles", "Benny Hinn sending to mailers" & "Benny Hinn's divorce" are not on topic of CHC wikipedia page. They should be on Benny Hinn wikipedia page unless these articles are involved with CHC & Benny Hinn together (not outside CHC). Kimberry352 (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pls see the CHC talk/discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:City_Harvest_Church. [: Kimberry352 (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yup, thanks. i've replied there. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for us to meet up for clear clarification and better face to face communication? How abt meeting up at Bugis Junction? Exchange MSN? Kimberry352 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, it is not possible to give u my h/p number on Wikipedia. How about my non-personal email? -- Can? I will email to you my h/p number. Preferably, I think I shall meet you face to face for better clarification & understanding.Kimberry352 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3in1KOPI forum gossip behind my back?[edit]

Sighs.. Is it right to gossip things over the things? If online backstabbing is allowed in 3in1KOPI, is it appropriate? Anyway, I am very shocked to find out that you are the one who posted the message to the people in online discussion forum called 3in1KOP -- See it at CHC member wants to meet me f-to-f woh.. Why? Love gossiping outside online web based Wikipedia? Is it unethical? Just now I read down the posts in this 3in1KOPI topic and I found it too ridiculous and absurd. Sighs.. I now discover that you are also kojakt_89 (3in1KOPI username) of 3in1KOPI forum. No wonder you claimed to be a moderator of 3in1KOPI forum. I need to ask you - Are 3in1KOPI and Wiki are mutually inclusive? Now I am uncertain whether you may intentionally to take your 'puppets' to meet me. Sighs... No boundary knows ages, races, languages and religions. Now I think I want to see you face to face for not only Benny's topic but also any other topics you shall find out. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I fixed your link. Remember to put a space after adding a link, or it will be a syntax error Zhanzhao (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Biow Chuan[edit]

Hi Ahnan, do note that blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. I see the blog is a political blog, which makes its neutrality in doubt. If possible, please use news sources instead.

With regards to the copyright violations, I referred to you taking the text word for word from the news sources. Despite what you think, under Wikipedia policy, taking chunks of text verbatim from news sources still constitutes copyright violation. With reference to Channelnewsasia, the site specifically also states "Copyright © 2010 MediaCorp". However, you are allowed to reference the news site then paraphrase the content. Please get yourself more familiar with what is allowed and not allowed under WP:Copyright Violation policies. It would make one wonder if the rest of your edits are similarly in copyright violation, whether you are committing it on purpose or not.DanS76 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your threat to "report" me for edit warring only exposes your own lack of what is or is not allowed under Wikipedia policy to the more senior editors. As per the edit warring instructions, Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption. Anyway Angus McLellan has also provided his own feedback on where you went wrong, so hopefully you learn from your mistake and don't re-commit the same mistake the next time. And by the way, I'm not 116.14.4.32. It does not do you justice to jump to conclusions and group anonymous IPs with log-ed in editors just because the lot of us rejected your edits for being not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Or next you'll be implying that I am Angus McLellan as well. DanS76 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting Ahnan[[2]]
My dear friend, it's not over yet... It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings Ahnan (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're cetainly a friendly fella aint'cha. Well as long as you edit within the rules of Wikipedia when contributing to Wikipedia you won't be faulted by anyone here.DanS76 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you want to fault me, pls familiarize with the rules yourself before starting your hunting season. Things may backfire. For example, understand the concept of fair use rules under copyright laws... Ahnan (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you seem to be the only one here who thinks your misunderstanding of the concept fair use rules gives you permission to practice copyvio. Considering other editorS already pointed out your misintepretation on the Lim Biow Chuan talk page, backfire indeed. And by the way, your 3RR report does not have a foot to stand on, as there are multiple editors reverting your un-wiki-like content. On the other hand, the only thing editors will see is you practicing 3RR. Cheers.DanS76 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing fixes much of the problem, but please also look at the "Criticism and praise" section of the WP:BLP policy page. In short, "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections are often a problem, especially when combined with issues of "undue weight" (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The question - I have no idea as to the answer - would be whether this event is really significant in Lim's life. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed as a politician, such callous remarks made by him would be considered significant. Yes? Ahnan (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Singnificance is a subjective term, and we try to avoid subjectivity in Wikipedia.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. But the point is this. At the height of Jack Neo's scandal, Lim's words (he later said he was misquoted) did add salts into the wound, causing an uproar. I mean, you are a Singaporean. You should be able to judge if this incident was significant or not. In general, people expect politicians to make politically correct statements. Hence, I feel this is a controversy that needs to be reported factually on wiki. That's my point. Ahnan (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wiki Harassment of Kimberry352 by Ahnan[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Canvasing / Recruiting Meatpuppets[edit]

Hi Ahnan, it appears that you are "canvassing" for support from outside Wikipedia [[3]] with regards to the Lim Biow Chuan article.

From: kojakbt_89 Apr-12 12:20 pm To: ALL

Help! If you guys free, pls go in and help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Biow_Chuan

I'm trying to add the controversy section where this PAP MP mentioned about supporting Jack Neo's affair initially but changed his statement the next day saying that he is misquoted (if you read the news, you will know that no way journalist can misquote him).

Anyway, there is a PAP mf now engaging edit war with me. He's deleting the controversy stuff off accusing me of infringing copyrights. How can I be infringing copyrights when I'm quoting just what Lim said and not the whole article?

Everytime I reinstate, he will delete. And now, he is threatening to report me to wiki mod!!!


What you are doing could come under "stealth canvassing". Canvasing is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. If you feel any of the editors have been biased, you are free to raise the issue via WP:COI, WP:ANI or some other suitable venue in Wikipedia to other editors and admins previously not involved and hence impartial to the debate to weigh in. It will do you well to read the whole article on "canvassing" and see why it is discouraged to protect both Wikipedia and you as an editor.DanS76 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"canvassing" says: Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Are those fellas on 3in1 wikipedians? Ahnan (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they do not edit, they are not editors. Note however that asking them if they are free to "pls go in and help" as per the 1st line in your request, and once they come in here to help, they then become wikipedians. And you are explicitly asking them to do so. So, yes, its still canvassing. DanS76 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once any one of them makes a comment (an "edit") on WP, then he/she becomes a "Wikipedian". May I refer you to this discussion with specific emphasis on point number 2? Bielle (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, I'm talking to non-wikipedians. Ahnan (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is an even more specific term for this action called Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. You would do well to familiarize yourself with this so that you do not get into trouble with this.DanS76 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a puppet master. I don't control their actions. How do you know if they come in here they would naturally agree with me? I don't even know them in the first place. They are all anonymous netizens, just like I don't know you. Ahnan (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would actualyl do you well to READ what Meatpuppetry is. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate..
Its the action of advertising itself rather than the follow up action of the recruits that makes one guilty of Meatpuppetry. Just do not commit this same mistake in the future.DanS76 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully, it's recruiting people WHO agree with you. How do you know they would agree with me? Ahnan (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post has you explicitly asking for help. The key point here is you putting out a call for anyone out on that forum to help you. You are the one searching for someone who agrees with you. From the thread, I already see 2 posters suggesting how you can continue to sneak your edits in, non asking you to cease and desist. Yes, Agreement.DanS76 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They may want to help but they not necessary agree with me. They may, after coming in here and reading all the contents decide that I'm wrong. Ahnan (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hounding you, I just think you might have built a trap for yourself without you even knowing it. Will send you a PM to elaborate.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just sent you the mail via your wiki email. You might want to read it ASAP.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ahnan regarding his mindset of my attempting to character assassinate Ahnan in the hope of getting rid of Ahnan and his controversial additions to CHC[edit]

Ahnan, I only accept reliable and relevant views inside CHC article no matter whether they are controversial or non-controversial. Like what I have already explained in CHC's discussion page. If the article mention the relationship between CHC and Benny & the article is reliable and relevant, then I won't be in position to object it. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong interpretation on the title of the off-wiki thread posted at 3in1 KOPI forum[edit]

"CHC attempting to remove Ahnan fr Wiki" [[4]] thread dated on 15 Apr 2010 & posted by Ahnan aka kojakbt_89 -- This thread's title has got a wrong interpretation. Sighs.. Not again, I stress that I don't represent CHC entirely. What I talked to you deems as my individual msgs. In case, pls don't take advantage of (abuse voluntarily or involuntarily) the freedom of the internet. Sighs.. Even so, hope we need to settle down things in a well meaning way. Otherwise, things may be going to be irreconcilable. =[ Kimberry352 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

Please don't leave message such as the one on the page of Eugene22 (I have removed it), let others take care of things here, don't get yourself flustered by such people, okay? Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

1st advice[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:City Harvest Church. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Remember, no snide remarks or attacks below the belt on another editor no matter what other people might say of you. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. Take heed. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 19:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd advice[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:New Creation Church. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahnan, I'm warning you for the last time, please do not do it again. You want to be respected? Then start to respect others by respecting yourself first, you don't have to type in caps to get our attentions. However, if you fail to heed my advice, you might find yourself at the short end of the stick when I nominate you for sanctioning measures for your pointy behaviour. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show me proof that I'm attacking people?? Do not falsely accuse me... Ahnan (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you did not attack anyone just now but you have been fairly disruptive to the project by typing out an entire message of yours in caps on the article page of NCC. TBH, I'm 2 seconds away from nominating you now, so consider this your last and final warning~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my caps lock was on accidentally. Didn't know that this can cause irritation to you. will ensure that caps lock will be off when I type next time. my conscience is clear, I didn't attack anyone and I've been quite tolerant. On the contrary, I think Kimberry is actually the one who is disruptive. Deleting stuff away and said that there isn't any source to back it up when the source is there all along. He/she didn't even bother to read the details of the source. Shouldn't you be watching out people like him??? Do you think it's fair not to pinpoint Kimberry but keeps targeting me am conscientiously trying to give a full picture to the wiki writings? Where is your conscience.Ahnan (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahnan, I am so sorry to have to agree to disagree with your opinion that I am said to be "the one who is disruptive". I think that you might have already a mindset (schema?) that I am "always" disruptive to you, huh? Based on NCC wiki article, I recently requested for reliable sources to verify and prove these source-less statements. Moreover, currently NCC wiki article includes not only NCC (as in church organisationbuilding) but also Joseph Prince (as in living human). Ahnan, I am quite disappointed that you assumed that I like to disrupt Wiki editors' editing actions. Well, I guess that I forgive you no matter when we meet at same 'Wiki places'let it go. Speaking frankly, I don't really want to make editings/post messages to discussion page even as there are more disagreement - it may waste my time - it may prompt me to exit Wikipedia. Pls remember to be thoughtful and civil to other Wiki editors when you do editing in Wiki. I wonder what Wiki policies are meant to you. What is your purpose for contributing to Wikipedia? I understand clearly that your purpose is to reveal the truth to the public/world so that it may be informed. ([[5]] as of 12 June 2010). Right? Shalom Kimberry352 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your "caps lock was on accidentally", then wonder why the first letter of every sentence was not in small letters.. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kim, Ahnan's excuse of the caps lock was on accidentally (for such a LONG passage?) is hardly plausible for him to explain why he did not take the time to even read and check during and after the typing process before he even click on the "Save page" button. And as everybody has seen it for themselves, the reason why the first letter in every sentence isn't in lower caps is really a no brainer. Else, why would I even get mildly irritated by it in the first place?

Another thing: Ahnan's rhetoric of incivility on more than one occasion (as evident by the long list of "complaints" above) has many editors (including myself now) up in arms and frowning on such unacceptable behaviour here on Wikipedia. Remember this, Ahnan... Wikipedia is a community based collaborative effort and if you cannot cooperate with us or persists on ignoring the feelings of the other editors, choosing to carry on with things your way, I would suggest that you leave this project immediately because what you are doing is no different from hurting the project, Wikipedia could do without having to contend further with your incessantly argumentative or combative style/behaviour (now you know why I quoted on your pointy behaviour?).

Also, I've mentioned earlier, you're already way overboard in the department of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and I'm 2 seconds away from nominating you for sanctioning measures (which could result in a BLOCK or BAN for you, indefinitely if need be) on WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Take heed, this is my last piece of advice for you. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep, I have seen his excuse. Dave, try not to feel slighted annoyed by his action. Somewhat, I used to it since he and I met on Wikipedia. I'm a bit afraid - thinking whether he still has a mindset of me. Nvm, I just let it go. :] Hopefully, Ahnan should turn over a new leaf and is willing to be teachable (i.e. agree and follow Wikipedia policies). Kimberry352 (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for amicable relations between Ahnan and Kimberry in Wiki world[edit]

As the title says above, I would like to seek your agreement to compromise that we will make things smooth without "making ourselves think that we are fighting against each other". This wikipedia is not like a battle for edits. When you got disagreement with my post at the discussion page or my edits, please be respectful and civil while talking to other Wiki editors like me. Thank you. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes for Ahnan[edit]

  • There is no substitute for basic honesty and integrity in one's life.
  • No person will learn anything without first learning humility.
  • An optimist says his glass is half full; a pessimist says the glass is half empty.
  • It is impossible to travel in the wrong direction and reach the right destination.
  • Accepting good advice increases your ability.
  • The most difficult test of the human heart is to hear of an enemy's success without becoming negative (e.g. jealous, angry, etc)

Kimberry352 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahnan&oldid=1143538115"