Kimberry352

CHC & NCC

Should I refrain from editing both CHC & NCC wiki pages indefinitely? What does the true Wikipedia mean to me? Instead of gluing my chair to read and write articles in Wikipedia, I need peace to sleep, eat, play, chat, watch, exercise, study and work. =( Kimberry352 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you stop editing and watch others first. If you can't see the source, ask first. I'm just curious, do you have a disability issue, from the way you edit stuff in wiki? Ahnan (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I have received the source recently. Kimberry352 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Following

Hi, Kimberry, yes, "religious following": "following" in his case means a group of followers, adherents, or supporters, all of which could be modified by "religious". You could say quite correctly, for example, the spiritual leader had a large religious following. "Religious" would be the adjective of "following". Thanks for coming back to me on this. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just to continue: I merely reverted the section to what it was before, it was obviously meant in the context I mentioned above, an adjective. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Simon, thanks for explaining it to me again. I got it. (: Kimberry352 (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolution on Taiwan's Future

Thank you for adding the {{copypaste}} template on that article. Even though the copyright tag wasn't on the source, I've removed the copyrighted text per WP:COPYPASTE#But surely I can copy from THIS?. Minimac (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

CHC & NCC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

• Dear Kim, I'm guessing your presence on the article page of CHC is because you are writing for the opponent? My official stand is to refrain from editing both (other than reverting vandals)), if I can help it, due to the fact that I have friends from either side, good friends if I might add. In any case, do a good job and don't get carried away. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the message. CHC has more weight than NCC because of Joy Tong's academic research. Joy Tong took the case study of CHC when she was a NUS undergraduate. Despite I oppose Joy Tong's case study because of the stigma against the selected megachurch instead of several megachurch in the local community, the statements added by Elle/LGPD [[1]] sound as if they are neutral. Thus, I leave Elle/LGPD's editings behind. In fact, besides CHC, the other megachurches such as New Creation Church (NCC) and Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) also face stigma - i.e. McDonaldization religion. However, Joy Tong's original research has not taken account of these churches (i.e. compare and contrast unique megachurches) adequately.

The cited academic original research done by Joy Tong (a student of NUS - National University of Singapore) is actually a part of the composed book authored and edited by Professor at NUS.Kimberry352 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• TBH, I beg to differ, because of someone's accomplished academic research does not make one church heavier than the others. Realistically, the whole experience of church going is what makes a church goer feel comfortable or not with that church and CHC has been, IMO, lacking in that department as compared to the others. As a matter of fact, most of my former RSAF peers who goes to both CHC and NCC has eventually settled on the latter. That much we can say. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• is this part related to Joy Tong? Kimberry352 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• What do you think? ;) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• do you find that Joy Tong has a bias to research on the selected megachurch instead of all megachurches in general? Moreover, it is more of a case study for academic study.Kimberry352 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• All I can say is: "Nothing has meaning except for the meaning that one gives it." --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• your reply suggests to me that you know nothing except the unique source of Joy Tong. I can tell that you cannot see the difference in the local megachurches in which Joy Tong studies in her original research. Btw I took a break from writing numerous posts with Elle/LGPD under CHC talk page. Let CHC be more weight in due compared to other local megachurches since CHC is not in my hands anymore. Anyway, thanks for ur quote. P.s. It would be nice if admins who are not from Singapore have chances to discern the general and specific point of view from one man research with narrow scope, it is up to them to make decisions on the use of acamedic studies, case studies and original research for wiki entries like CHC. NCC looks better than CHC in wiki since NCC is more neutral. FCBC needs to be furnished with good and reliable info. Good nightKimberry352 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you really understand what I meant but what the heck... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• well, no choice. You cannot agree with me, right? Let bygones be bygones. Kimberry352 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strangers? Sockpuppetry?

• John316! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J0hn 0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ← new account created, claimed to have lost password to the old account, also not discussing prior to reverting, I have since asked for the page to be protected
• 182.55.241.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 182.55.241.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Hi Kim, this one got me stymied... just wondering if you might have any idea who the bugga might be? Does he reek of User:Ahnan? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

no, it is not me. Please trust in my IP address. otherwise, you may report me to Wiki authority. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1.) Please keep the discussion in one place as I do watchlist it after leaving a note. 2.) I'm not accusing you of sockpuppetry, you're not a suspect in this case as I was asking you "if you have any suspect in mind?". 3.) Lastly, cut out with the formality, a user's talk page is supposed to discuss things in an informal ambience. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I get what you mean. My sincerest apology for misunderstanding. Btw, I think the sock puppets may be more likely CHC members or supporters. I suggest they should be blocked for vandalism (i.e. Removing repeatedly) for temporary period. They are unlikely to be related to Ahnan. I know Ahnan who is also known as Kojakbt of 3in1 kopitiam forum (for more info, pls google) attack CHC and NCC with negative information without reliable sources last time.Kimberry352 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, the situation doesn't warrant that, yet, but I suspect that it will come to such eventually if they continue to follow what their leaders are telling them to do. AFAIK, I can nominate it but the basis is too thin for me to stand until they've crossed a certain threshold, which they have not. As an aside, it is now on the radar of another Administrator, we'll see how this goes. Anyway, whoever from CHC edits this article page are guilty of WP:COI, they should be labelled as such for all to see and their blind reverts should be undone on sight because if they don't want to discuss things on the talk page of the article before they revert blindly, then it is only right that they should be remove, as painlessly as possible. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• IMO, it may be the first time for them to edit CHC entry in Wikipedia world. Unfortunately, they seem that they do not know Wikipedia rules. They are probably not be willing to discuss on the "controversial" academic case study by Joy Tong. Yes, if they revert more than 3 times (i.e. removing without discussion), then they should be banned from Wikipedia. I am very disappointed with their actions. Well, I should not be bothered by upcoming controversies in future. Kimberry352 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The current semi-protect may be sufficient to lock most of the IPs out. Just worried about the throwaway comment asking them to contribute to the other church's article that might lead to an edit war between 2 factions in that page. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding what I've mentioned in the section above WP:Writing for the opponent, I beg to differ, editors from both side can coexist but it is the age composition that determines the maturity and the level of thoughts on both sides. On Wikipedia and the internet, CHC seem to have more younger folks (late teens/early twenties) while NCC seem to have more older folks (late twenties/early thirties). Thus far, NCC article seem to have lesser problem and controversy than that of CHC, this could be attributed to the difference I've mentioned and to the differing in world view held by the pastors. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually what I am afraid of is CHC supporters going after the NCC pages. There has always been some form of "rivalry" between the two being they are "competing" megachurches, and I had in the past seen what looked like "tit-for-tat" edits that occured on the other church's page when one of the church was being edited. Some form of smearing your competitor so you dont look as bad in comparison. Childish I know, but there were signs of it, though luckily not recently. Just giving a heads up. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully there should be interfaith religion committee organization set up to oversee the growing Christian congregation. Otherwise, the fast growing Christian congregation from all churches even including megachurches may cause unhappiness and jealousy among Christianity and other religions in Singapore. I doubt the Singapore government of new generation can handle religious problems. Btw, the wiki entry for prominent megachurches such as NCC, CHC, FCBC, VFC, LHC etc should have balanced weigh in tone. No information from sources should be from person's opinions, Unfortunately, CHC wiki entry has more weight in negative information (based on one man original research - selective megachurch, undertaken by Joy Tong). Since Elle said case studies with primary sources can be used for Wiki entries, I am in no position to say about it. Well, i guess it is the best to leave Joy Tong's experimental information intact in CHC wiki entry. IMHO, case studies should not be applied to specific entities if these case studies come from original research and have selected one/few entities of same type instead of all/most of the entities of same type (for more differentiation). I.e. Megachuches included NCC, CHC, FCBC, VFC, LHC...what do they have in common and not have in common? Kimberry352 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Kim, after spending some time to look at the timeline of CHC page history, I'm very certain that the list of users/ips is one and the same, so I've reported it to a Singaporean Admin - User:Mailer diablo. See also User talk:182.55.241.225#Apologies for John's (or whatever his name is) crocodile tears, better known as bullshit to us. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• No doubt that he attempted to make his church look clean. That was why he was too quick to edit CHC wiki entry that he forgot to log in. Also, he created another account to avoid the block. Very disappointed. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

CHC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Editors are allowed in all circumstances to remove their own comments from a talk page if they feel that the comments were made in error, especially if no further comments are made before the removal. If it had never been improperly restored there would not even be a section for discussion. Restoring my comments with my signature is a violation of policy. You may summarize my comments (without reference to the editor who made it), but you may not restore it with my signature. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Correction, see → WP:REDACT, I've restored for the sake of dialogue continuity and you may strike it out but you cannot remove it since it is already on the discussion page of an article and the response to a missing dialogue will only make more people scratch their heads. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Read what I said above. If my comment had never been restored, there would not be any further discussion in that section. I removed my signature but left the comment. Don't add my signature again -- either one of you. 174.99.127.49 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:SIGNHERE. Comment? Signature. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose we discontinue the discussion on failed verification. Is it okay? Kimberry352 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  

Closed discussion
Annonymous IP did not archive his/her comment on the talk page by striking it out. Closed. Kimberry352 (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance for you

• Kim, should you encounter further problem(s) on the article page of CHC and the likes, please feel free to drop a note on a Singaporean Admin's talk page User talk:Mailer diablo‎. For non-emergencies or confidential discussions, try dropping me an email instead if you can't reach her. Cheers and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. Btw I feel like leaving Wikipedia world but I see how. Regards, Kim. Kimberry352 (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)