User talk:5Proof

Controversial article about the association between Benny Hinn and CHC

It is okay to reveal truth/fact to the public; however, right now the articles that have been added by Ahnan are irrelevant to CHC's wikipedia page. It is more like they should be added in Benny Hinn's wikipedia page instead. The controversial articles (dated on Apr 2001, Mar 2005, Nov/Dec 2006, Feb 2010) about Benny Hinn have nothing to do with CHC. It means that his actions did not take place within CHC. Benny Hinn's controversial articles (dates mentioned above) whereby CHC did not involve with him are not on topic with CHC. If both CHC and Benny Hinn have on same topic, then it is relevant. Otherwise, they will be irrelevant and thus they should be separated into Benny Hinn's and CHC's wiki page.

Pls see CHC wiki discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:City_Harvest_Church. Needs to discuss on article dispute before we settle it down.

(Sorry for my weak English. Hope you will understand what I mean.) Kimberry352 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversial article about the association between Benny Hinn and CHC 2

Note that the general editor consensus among the many editors both on the article talk page[[1]] AND the COI section [[2]] recommend either full removal of the section on Hinnes, or only a mention of the person with a link to his article to remain in the church article. Your constant reverting of unapproved material is unconstructive.

As summarized

"That said the edits made by that user with regard to this specific issue are in agreement with several other editors who have no obvious connection to the church for example [12], [13], and [14] (the last diff showing one of my comments — I knew nothing about this church till recently when I saw it come up on this COI notice board). User Ahnan, however, appears to be a limited purpose account. Looking at this user's contributions we see numerous edits to this article, the one for New Creation Church and a few for Lim Biow Chuan. Kimberry353 is acting in Good Faith and has not violated COI with respect to this issue. Several editors who appear to not have any connection to the church have reached the same conclusion. If anything users Ahnan and 5Proof are engaging in coatracking. SQGibbon (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)"

I note that your account seems to have been created only for the purpose of adding "support" to include the excessive detail on Hinnes on the article. More so than Ahana, your's seems to be a SINGLE purpose account.

Wikipedia is a community effort, not some place for you to rant your person opinions. Follow its rules, especially those about NPOV and COATRACK which you have been repeatedly warned about. If you continue with your disputed reverts, this is liable to get escalated to the next level which is an official complaint against your editorial actions.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

Please familiarize yourself with what a coatrack is. That is what you are turning the article on City Harvest Church into. Regardless, you are currently engaged in an edit war. If you should exceed three reverts in a 24 hour period, you may be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think referring to Benny Hinn in CHC article is considered a coatrack. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". There is no attempt to cover up anything. The section is clearly highlighted as a controversy section of CHC. CHC engages Benny Hinn, himself a controversial figure to do preaching in CHC service. Singapore public may not know that Benny Hinn is controversial himself. hence, the need to explain who is benny hinn. Otherwise, the public reading CHC article will think what's do controversial about getting Benny Hinn to help preach in CHC service? Ahnan (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is supposed to be the CHC, but the bulk of the content in the Benny Hill section is, in fact, about Benny Hill, in a context wholly independent of his association with the CHC (ergo, coatrack). It would not be a coatrack to mention Benny Hill's association, and then link to his article. This is the same reason we don't go into the details of Tiger Woods's controversial personal life in the article on the 2010 Masters Tournament. Or, for that matter, why we don't discuss pedophilia controversies in the article on Catholicism. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the mindset towards Kimberry352

5Proof said to Kimberry352: 5Proof (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Kimberry352, just because you or your church members don't like bad publicity doesn't make it 'irrelevant'. It might be 'irrelevant' to you and your ink, but it not 'irrelevant' not to the general public which do have the right to know what CHC is all about. Take this advise; trying to censor the truth will not serve anyone any good, including yourselves.

5Proof, I stress that I don't mean always hide the truth or speculation from the public. What i feel relevance of the content more matters. Btw, like other ppl said, you also said "you or your church members don't like bad publicity doesn't make it 'irrelevant'. But.. Sighs.. I want to quote "Whether a cat is black or white, it catches the mices as long as it can. Anyway, pls see my latest post (05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) under Benny section at CHC's discussion page. Kimberry352 (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning on Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on City Harvest Church. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hourrs for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)