User talk:Zhanzhao/Archive 1

Easy to ridicule

User:Zhanzhao, despite your attempts to fight falsehood, the ColourWolf vandal always strikes in areas which you do not know which is true. I suggest that you team up with User:Arbiteroftruth to take me down. That would make things more challenging for me.218.186.12.213 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Challenging indeed. I just have to log on. You have to create account after account. Have fun.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, blocked for 3 months

I am soooooo surprised. I wonder how many more addresses will be marked with my trademark ColourWolf name. I will be famous then, haha!StrongestManAlive (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Too bad there's more than just us 2 doing the corrections. StongestManAlive < Strength in Numbers Zhanzhao (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---Ohhhh... How lonely you must be. Because there's one thing you must know: You cannot protect every single page. My edits that User:Arbiteroftruth is attempting to stop are mere decoys, and both of you fell for it. Try stopping my more subtle edits. 218.186.12.204 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---Huge ego I see. Don't flatter yourself. I merely correct where I see mistakes or a need for ammendment. You are merely one more of the nameless to me. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Toa Payoh ritual murders

Hi 朝廷玉猫 (do correct me if I wrongly assume the source you pick for your username). I have replied on the Talk page of the article, but would like to add a bit here. Articles need not interlink each other, i.e. Article A may link to B, but B need not link to A. Mdm Valli's case can talk about the speculation of her former visits to Adrian Lim, because they are talking about her medical condition, which is pertinent to her case. However, it would not be encyclopaedically suitable for an article on Adrian Lim and the Toa Payoh murders to talk about Mdm Valli, whose connection is only casual and disputed. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jappalong. I put my reasonings in your talk page already. Essentially I just could not find a better way to put that info in other than as trivia as I felt it is part of the whole Adrian Lim mythos in Singapore so it had to be put in somewhere.... just not sure how to put it in. It does give a more informative feel to the article as all the other victims were all essentially faceless and unnamed.

If medical professionals conclude that Lim's treatments of Valli caused her condition to worsen (and become a cause of her conflict with the exorcists), we could work that in the "Legacy" section ("Lim's acts continue to affect his victims even after death." or such). As of now, however, it is an inconclusive item that should not be chronicled in this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Created 1st archive User_talk:Zhanzhao/archive_1

ColourWolf Socks

Thanks for bringing that user to my attention. He qualifies as a ColourWolf sock per WP:DUCK, and he has been banned by an admin. Thanks! Keep up the good work! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Madness

No problem. I know all too well what that's like. :) -WarthogDemon 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

While I can certainly understand the IP upsetting you, please be a little more careful when filing RPP requests. When you did your request you accidentally removed a bunch of other ones[1] :P Its all fixed now though.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot to turn off "automatic page refresh" and I think that caused some errors with my entry, will avoid it in the future.--Zhanzhao (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the future, go to WP:AIV. It's much more closely watched. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up! --Zhanzhao (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy...

Obviously your main interest is to show everything about originals and remakes. And as always you ignore Wikipedia's policies and keep edit warring.

So do read THIS ONE: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rule inappropriately cited as the points were made in the context of plagiarism claims and a pending lawsuit, not just points made without reason. Plus its already under a relevant, pre-existing subheading. Anyway the points were not originally made by me but removed without reason by someone else, who's apparenly interested in removing stuff about originals and remakes, ironically....Zhanzhao (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is you who misinterprets the nature of the guideline. Particular similarities or differences must be added IN CONTEXT. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its already IN CONTEXT of the pre-existing "Accusations of plagiarism" section. Thanks for pointing that out and agreeing with me on that.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zinda (film). 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. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page rather than continuing to revert. The removal was appropriate per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:MOSFILM. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually cited the WP:MOSFILM link already and the user is aware of WP:EW as he has already been blocked, so the warning does not really help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Shahid.... Ah I remember you. You're that guy that got blocked blocked 3 times as much more than I was for WP:EW. And got blocked with me that last time. 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes, so? Do you think you're being witty by saying that? I was blocked and even admins were kind enough to admit they were surprised and uncomfortable to block an editor like me who did a real contribution to Wikipedia unlike certain users whose "work" is centred around (yeh your 200 edits - did you expect to be blocked more than once with this amount?) on... well, adding trivial similarities between film plots and writing all over that a film is a rip-off. I'd rather contribute to Wikipedia and do what I appreciate (and what others appreciate me for). Your speculation does not excite me and does not make me, but actually makes you, look bad. The proof is that I was right with this page and you were wrong. It pretty sums up the nature of your edits on Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"LOL yes, so? Do you think you're being witty by saying that?" Resorting to "lols"..... sigh. For an experienced editor to repeatedly get penalized by the same rule only shows one thing. You did not learn. Again. AND again. Also in that previous incident previous warnings, both of us were asked to cool down. But I guess ego is blinding you a little.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes it does... Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint about Zinda (film)

Hello Zhanzhao. The case about the Zinda film has been closed with a warning to you. You have made a series of reverts on this article, after others removed some material that you wanted to add. The other editors complain that your edits are against WP:MOSFILM. Your additions must respect consensus. If you continue to add the material which compares two films, without first getting support on the article's Talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I just want to clarify that I was merely reverting information that was removed by Lexbevis(contribs)who apparently created an account just primarily for that purpose. The list prior to removal had been originally there for ages without any issues. In fact it was even useful in resolving a previous discussion where another editor claimed that Zinda was NOT plagiarised from Old boy. As for consensus, as far as I see there was only one editor on the opposing end in that issue. That same editor was similar in conflict with me in another WP:EW situation so I tend to take his comments with a pinch of salt, considering that he had been banned a number of times for edit wars in the past. When a 2nd editor Collectonian (talk stepped in , I respected her decision and stopped the edits. I did try to validate my reason for the reversion on her talk page but somehow the discussion stopped. Only upon my revision did it create an issue. Anyways I did find a review about Zinda that raises only the 4 glaring similarities, and this will be included in the talk page for about a week before I add them in the main page. As mentioned, I did not create the content so am not partial to it, but just want to highlight the similarities of the plagiarism claims which is the focus of the plagiarism subsection (which was also NOT created by me. I just want to enhance the content). Would that resolve the problem?Zhanzhao (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you should not take others' comments with a pinch of salt, no matter who they are. And no, the similarities you added to the talk page will not be added to the main page - they are not acceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It abides by WP:OR and WP:V, so why not?Zhanzhao (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? You have an answer on the film's talk page. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats cool with me, her point is credible. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Najib

Thank you for your recent constructive edits to the murder section. Monkeyassault (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder

I think I've worked out why you posted at the Kercher talk page. Hope I've been helpful with my comments. In general, I think it is better, when there is an NPOV issue with a page and further help is need, to post at WP:NPOV/N, rather than on the talkpage of another article where the same issue might be relevant. Editors may be inclined to misunderstand that you are raising a suggestion about the page, rather than just trying to get an opinion for use elsewhere. I made this mistake initially, as you can see from my response at Kercher. --FormerIP (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi FormerIP, thanks for the reply. My original intent of posting on the Meredith Kercher page was because it was the most current/hot "Murder of", and was sure that point would have been debated in the past (though I can't seem to find the archive for that). I was not shopping for support for that other article, which was why I purposely made the statement in a general tone as well as made no mention of that other case; just that the talk page on the Kercher page seemed to be the place to get the most/widest/fastest opinions on that particular aspect of NPOV language use as of now. WP:NPOV/N completely slipped my mind just now, will use it in the future, thanks for the reminder! Zhanzhao (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't meaning to have a go. Mainly thinking that a noticeboard will normally get you a clearer answer more quickly (and without the risk of anyone getting confused). Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:J.delanoy

You seem to have added old content to his page while removing some new content; was this a mistake? I undid your edit because I couldnt make sense of it; my apologies if I'm missing something. I note that your version seems to be identical to this version. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, I accidentally edited the old cached page, my bad:P thanks for the catch/correction Zhanzhao (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Move of The Unbeatables

If you need a move reversed, but the redirect has a history, please note that the {{db-move}} tag goes on the redirect, not on the article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

CHC's association with Benny Hinn

Certain controversial articles about Benny which "exclude from CHC because of irrelevance" should be removed. They are also from another wiki page called "Benny Hinn". However, the wiki user Ahnan still wants to publicize these articles in CHC's wiki page although these articles are offtopic (as they have no relationship between CHC and Benny in spite of CHC's association with him). At last, I had no choice but to respect Ahnan's demands. Perhaps you should go see CHC's talk page and post your messages to express your thoughts or suggestion. If necessarily, do edit these articles to make them more relevant and up to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberry352 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup I just did. If this carries on I think there's be no choice but to escalate it to the next level again and let the admins and senior editors weigh it in. Wikipedia does not belong to any single one person, and they will take the appropriate actions. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, wiki does not belong to anyone. Certainly it doesn't belong to me, but neither does it belong to CHC. For me it's simple, I want the truth to be told rather than be surpressed. CHC's association with controversial Benny Hinn is a FACT. Zhanzhao, don't tell me you also want to suppress this fact from the public? If you go thru the history, our friend Kimberry here has been trying to find all sort of excuses trying to delete the controversial stuff from the public. Are you also saying that CHC is perfect and that there is no controversies inside the church? Or are you a CHC member yourself? Ahnan (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the talk, an article already exists about the person. If your purpose is only to show association, whatever exists is sufficient as it links to the main article. Only quote what is relevant to the article - in this case, how the person relates to the church in question. I did not remove the whole section on the person, just summarized it to leave it relevant to the article. I don't see how answering whether I am or not from the church matters here. If you feel the way I edit is COI, do feel free to voice it out at the proper channels. I'm sure the other editors will share my sentiments on the edits. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking you if you are from CHC to ascertain if there is any COI. If you are, say yes. If not, say no. What's so difficult about revealing where you come from? I'm not related to CHC or NCC or any other churches, for that matter. Why are you so sensitive about this? You mean by asking if you belong to CHC means I'm attacking you??? Ahnan (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated repeatedly, it would only be relevant for a COI discussion if the edits are against Wikipedia regulation. Feel free to raise it up to the proper channels if you question my edits. You on the other hand, appear to have it in for the CHC and NCR, since your edit history speaks for itself. Do take a step back and dwell on WP:NPOV instead. You should also keep in mind that wiki editors are only supposed to be against bad edits/ articles, not opposing views. Also face the fact that some editors do not like to reveal absolutely ANYTHING about themselves on the net in order to protect their privacy because they have been burned before for it, or they like to keep a sense of mystery about themselves (The whole point of remaining anonymous on the internet). Wikipedia:Don't assume that just because someone is correcting your edits that they are against you or your beliefs personally. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing here. Whether a cat is black or white, it catches mice as long as it can. We can respect everyone and if possible, negotiation and agreement will make it better. Compromise, Manipulation and Co-option or Co-ercion are not the best methods.Kimberry352 (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AFC Silviu Ionescu

Hi Zhanzhao, I found very help Wikipedians who are more friendly. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Silviu_Ionescu and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chzz#Articles_for_creation.2FSilviu_Ionescu And thank you for your support ! Ronald2010 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm trying to help a bit on the article. Just stick to the core facts and NPOV language, and I don't think the article will face much problems getting approved. Just tone down on the outrage and accusations. The facts of case as reported and the reported responses of all the parties involved are more than sufficient to create a decent article.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(note, I am copying this over to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silviu Ionescu to keep discussions in one place  Chzz  ►  13:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Your request as per on my talk page

Can reference Tanlipkee talk page.

New Creation Church Talk Page Archive here and of course on my talk page. As quoted directly from the person, 'I have no trouble with you. Only NCC and CHC members who repeatedly trying to hide the truth from public.'

--Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm thats quite a safe statement actually. Good to take note of though, thanksZhanzhao (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Explicit stating that he has no trouble against me but CHC and NCC ppl who is trying to hide the truth is pretty obvious that he has a vendetta against CHC and NCC, this is how I feel. You can go thru his talk page and edit history for NCC and resorting to personal attacks is definitely a no-no.

But he is correct to an extent that if these CHC and NCC people are in fact removing legitimate content and hiding the truth, they would have been in fact in violation of COI. However, based on the strength of the language used by Ahnan, its quite incredible for him to claim NPOV on this issue either. In any case, the rules of Wikipedia have to be followed for any edit. The info you provided will be a matter of public record, and as mentioned, hopefully it need not be dug up for mediation purposes.Zhanzhao (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he added all those information if I remember correctly then subsequently removed by 2 NCC people (do check NCC edit history to confirm). Tanlipkee had his personal reputation smeared in a public forum as he chose to use his real name, members of the public incited to "disturb" him in his real life. His edits have been deemed fair by other editors and hence accepted. Anyway, I hope he can just give up. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not my nature to give up a fight if I see injustice. I'm sure you want the truth of NCC and CHC be revealed? Xaiver0510. I've nothing agasint NCC and CHC. I just don't like the way they trying to hide info. But looks like our friend Zhanzhao has complained agasint me? HAHAHA! If you're a man, you could have just come to my talk page and talk nicely to me. Anyway, I'll be watching for any infringement on your part... I can also complain...

Thanks for drawing my attention to that Ahnan (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I preferred not to chat on ZhanZhao talkpage as I cant keep my eyes on here. It is definitely obvious that you do not have NPOV on the 2 churches. Hiding information? as long it has a citation and what is being written on the article is fair accordingly to wikipedia's guidelines, it will be there one day, written fairly, cited. It is fair enough to say you are opinionated against them based on what you have written and how you behave that shows that you cannot maintain a fair article. Edit history are available to expose that. Why should I be challenged and be pulled down to your level? If you like to talk and challenge, why can't you talk on my talk page? Have fun monitoring my edits, especially if you love soccer articles. If you observed long enough, I edit when I have time or have the mood, check out the long lapses in the edits~!

I'm sure that after posting and seeing 3in1kopitiam's "positive" response to Kimberry352's participation in CHC's talk page, you posting my edits on [[2]] must have been based on the the "best" of intents. Similarly, your opinions on CHC and NCC lost its claims of neutrality in the context of the opinions you are showing there. Its very hard to maintain a facade of neutrality with the comments of CHC and NCC you have there. If you see any infringement on my part, I do welcome your feedback as it will make me a better editor. I hope the same can be also said for you.Zhanzhao (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Silviu Ionescu - Centralizing discussions

Please note I have moved the prospective article to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2009 Singapore Romanian diplomat incident

This frees up the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2009 Singapore Romanian diplomat incident, where we can discuss developments.

This hopefully avoids the problems of the various discussions split over several user talk pages.

The page title was changed following discussions and concerns over WP:BLP1E - further discussion can continue on the talk page.

Best,  Chzz  ►  13:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahnan

I supposed as a politician, such callous remarks made by him would be considered significant. Yes? Ahnan (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Singnificance is a subjective term, and we try to avoid subjectivity in Wikipedia.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

I see.. Ahnan (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Zhanzhao. You have new messages at Bielle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahnan's standpoint outside Wikipedia

HiZhanzhao, thanks for making a report on the Admin's Notice Board about Ahnan's harassment. Sorry for the long message here. Pls take your time to read here. Thanks. Btw, he still posts the negatives and articles (which seem 'maddening' to him) at the forums (e.g. 3in1KOPI, etc..) in the cyber-world. In spite of his wrongful action (off-wiki harassment), I did my best to stay cool so that I felt alright.

you mean wikipedians cannot talk outside of wiki? Is wikipedians are supposed to be some kind of Masonites? Ahnan (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I read the past about the disagreement between Ahnan and Tanlipkee. I feel a bit disappointed that Tanlipkee seemed to have left the Wikipedia. I understand that Ahnan attempted to harass Tanlipkee in real life. I realise that I should not meet Ahnan face to face if he is still persistently stubborn and one-sided(biased) and he continues posting the negatives and articles (that seem unpleasant to him) to the internet. I should put my personal safety as an important priority.

actually, it's more like the other way... I need to protect my safety... Ahnan (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(A) Past history (June 2009) about Tanlipkee and Ahnan I understood that Ahnan wanted to exhaust Tanlipkee on a few 3in1KOPI threads by attacking him repeatedly [[3]]. However, I felt that something was missing out and was unseen around Wikipedia noticeboard for a long time since June 2009 ----- till I recently found out that Ahnan engaged in NCC wiki issues at another forum called Sam's Alfresco Heaven (or also same as SingSupplies) on that same month - June 2009. [[4]] Ahnan (Wikipedia username) is also kojakbt (Sam's Alfresco Heaven / SingSupplies username). I recalled that Ahnan is also 'kojakbt_89' (3in1 Kopi forum username).
1. "Really need help from bros here to fight NCC thugs in Wiki War erupting there... " thread [[5]] created by Ahnan(wiki username) or kojakbt(Sam's Alfresco username) on 14 June 2009 --> To me, he seemed to need help from internet users through Sam's Alfresco forum besides 3in1KOPI forum on that same month - June 2009. It sounded so serious...
2. "Updates on battle with NCC thugs on Wiki" thread [[6]] --> Looked like he updated the status about the ongoing arguments about Tanlipkee and NCC on 20 June 2009. It seemed nothing serious to me. Based on these two threads above created by Ahann(Wiki username) who is also kojakbt(Sam's Alfresco username) under Sam's Alfresco forum, he seemed to be desperate for recruiting other people (meatpuppets?) from the same forum to support his standpoint against New_Creation_Church on June 2009. As a result, Tanlipkee seemed to have left Wiki; the NCC wiki case seemed to be closed
(B) Talked behind my (kimberry352's) back on Sam's Alfresco forum? It seemed that another user named makapaaa from Sam's Alfresco forum posted the thread "CHC member wants to meet me f-to-f woh.." thread [[7]]. This is the same as other thread [[8]] posted by kojakbt(3in1KOPI username) or Ahnan(Wiki username). I felt a bit disappointed about this incident again. However, if I'm not wrong, probably 'makapaaa' is not same as 'kojakbt' or 'kojakbt_89'. I think 'makapaaa' from Sam's Alfresco is either a 3in1KOPI user or a 3in1KOPI reader.
(C) Ahnan and Lim Biow Chuan wiki page Surprised, I also discovered that Ahnan also posted another new thread "Need help in wiki war for PAP LBC entry" thread [[9]] on 3in1KOPI forum. Based on the title of this thread, Ahnan seemed to be desperate for 3in1KOPI users/readers for help to join him (meatpuppets?) for Wiki editing/discussion. As for my response to his action towards Lim Biow Chuan article, I adopt a wait and see attitude (still don't dare to talk there).
Anyway, if you have some time to read about Ahnan or kojakbt, maybe the Temasek Review articles (1) "YPAP supporter “Eric How” calls netizens “donkeys” and vows to shut down 3in1kopitiam forum" thread [[10]] and (2) "YPAP member Eric How to netizens: “Don’t blame the govt but your own karma or forefathers" thread [[11]] are useful for you to analyse and know his (cyber?) character.
I think he should learn not only EQ and Social Studies techniques but he also needs to understand Wiki-etiquettes. Wikipedia is not a debate for him..the way he continues posting the negatives and other articles (which he finds unpleasant) to other forums like 3in1 KOPI and Sam's Alfresco. I realise that his viewpoints are almost one-sided because he always seems to look for the 'truth' no matter how reliable the sources are. The word 'truth' may sound too generic. But if i'm not wrong, he wants to find the negative 'truth' which should be required to be checked, validated and proven/unproven. Thus, I think that he may possibly have negative (not balanced) point of view. Sighs.. Kimberry352 (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

as I have told some NCC fellas before, since it's they are naturally going to paint a good picture of NCC, I would focus on the controversies so as to make the article more balanced. It's like a surgery. You get specialists from different areas to come and operate on the patient so as to ensure the patient get a wholesome treatment.... Ahnan (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"I realise that his viewpoints are almost one-sided because he always seems to look for the 'truth' no matter how reliable the sources are. The word 'truth' may sound too generic. But if i'm not wrong, he wants to find the negative 'truth' which required to be checked, validated and proven/unproven. Thus, I think that he may possibly have negative (not balanced) point of view. Sighs..". Kimberry, it's strange that you even dare to mention this. Aren't you also profess one-sided views inside CHC article? You only seem to be interested to write "positive truth" of CHC, which also requires to be checked, validated and proven/unproven. Hence, I also think that you may possibly only have positive (not balanced) point of view. In fact, it's even worse. It's like a pot calling a kettle black. Sigh.. Ahnan (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Zhanzhao, sorry. I'm not sure if it is appropriate to report what i informed you here just now to the Admin's notice board. Ahnan seemed to have interpreted that 'I attempted attempting to character assassinate Ahnan in the hope of getting rid of Ahnan and his controversial.'[[12]]. I've made a mistake for his changed outlook about me but I think that if Ahnan is willing not to influence internet users on 3in1KOPI and Sam's Alfresco forums (outside Wikipedia) for help to support him for Wiki 'war' edit in future, then maybe he should be given a chance to change his attitude towards Wikipedia (people, articles, etc..). Pls advice. =[ Kimberry352 (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, aren't you also attempting to influence wiki editors' views here by saying bad things about me? Aren't you also fanning the war here? Ahnan (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahnan, I attempted to build my trust in you at the first place when I planned to meet you within each other's presence in the real world. However, I discovered that you kept on drawing attention to the online public outside the Wikipedia (e.g. posted the content of Wiki's discussion/user talk pages; posted your request for help from the online public outside Wikipedia). This made me disappointed. I hesitated if I should contact you for the meeting. Well, if I've offended you for making you think that I'm also fanning the war here, then my truly apology. :( What I want to quote: "The leopard cannot change its spot."
P.S. Pls don't try to chat with me here. Talk to me at my talk page if you are going to reply here. I think Wikipedia is not for chatting. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)