User talk:LoveYourNeighbor1

Can you plz let me know what are the violation I had done on this page. I am quoting articles published on leading print media of India. No body had challeged those article in the court as of now. Kinldy provide me a valid reason for removing the controversy section. I am having details from the home ministry of India how much money Gospel For Asia (USA) had send to India and How much money Gospel For Asia (India) and Believer's Church had shown as received . I have the data from 2003 to 2009 on that Rs 1000 crores are missing. This is a common age we had to see both good and bad. I had not made any allegation here . All was published on the media.

Before I address the controversies section, I will address the points above. 1. Where is the data that 1000 crores are missing. In no place is that found. 2. Even the listed sources are all allegations which have yet to be proven true (many allegations are quite old and have actually already been proven false). They hold no place on Wikipedia in the format they have been added.

As to why your section in its current form cannot be added, look at Higher Fructose's comments to understand why this section is not acceptable.

1. Not a neutral point of view. For example, point 4 under controversies does not mention that the investigation was rejected by the same High Court in a later ruling. Points 1, 2, 3, and 6 were also investigated and found to be not true. All findings are easily sourced online. Failure to mention this shows a lack of neutral point of view and show intent to defame and vandalize from the editor. 2. Addition of statements like "the irony is that in" show personal opinion and add extra statements to references. 3. Lack of Encyclopedic content. This section is not written up to the standards of a Wikipedia article and should not be included until such standard is met. Unedited content should remain on the Talk page until is is of proper quality. 4. Does not follow guidelines of BLP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

Dispute resolution

Hello. I have temporarily protected the article so that nobody can edit it. Please take this opportunity to discuss your differences about the article on its talk page and to reach out to the wider community through the methods described at dispute resolution. Often, this will mean visiting a discussion board to ask others to weigh in. I would really recommend you begin by explaining why you feel the content warrants complete exclusion at the talk page. I also do have to caution you that repeatedly undoing somebody else's edits can create problems for you. We call this "edit warring" and it can lead to a block - almost certainly if you revert somebody more than three times in one day. While it can be frustrating, it is helpful to remember that little is urgent on Wikipedia, and that you do have time to get assistance if you think somebody is doing something wrong. (You can read the exceptions at WP:3RR.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 1000 crores gone missing its not published an any of the media. I am having the Annual report of FCRA published by the Home Ministry Of India from 2003 to 2009. It clearly shows how much amount Gospel For Asia (USA) had send to India and how much money Gospel For Asia (India) and Believers Church had totally shown as received and spend for charity. I have solid proof of every real estate transactions done by Gospel For India and their office bearers. Believers church is having a Engineering college in Kerala and one medical college is under construction. Can you please let us know how many students of these colleges are from any of the charity mission supported by this organization. Where did the money came to build such big infrastructures? You mean the purpose of purchasing 2800 acres of land is charity. Then why doesn't that charity apply when some economically backward people tried to encroach the land under this organization. Why was force including the people of this organization and police applied to remove them from the estate? Why had international amateur radio union monitoring system ordered to remove transmission of Gospel For Asia from Issodun ? Why certain sections of the website of Gospel For Asia is redirected using a CDN script from accessing in India? Benedictdilton (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Benedictdilton: Wikipedia cannot accept any original research. None of the above claims are verified. From your statements above, it is clear that you have some agenda or set of differences with Gospel for Asia. However, this is not a forum to voice displeasure or raise complaints against an organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content should be treated as such. Moonriddengirl: I have already explained why the content needs to be excluded above. I am not stating that the content should be permanently removed. However, it is the role of the original editor to ensure that the article meets all guidelines. When the editor meets guidelines (with the help of the community using the talk page) they should be able to post the section. (1) The content is not written in Encyclopedic style (general controversies in the Biographies section for example) and lacks polish (typos, grammatical errors, run-on sentences). (2) The guidelines for Biographies of Living persons clearly state that content which is likely to be disputed should be removed immediately. This content clearly fits that bill. One example is the statement "crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchace 2800 acres of land in Kerala" which references an article which makes no such statement nor proves it. (3) The controversies section should be written in a neutral point of view as discussed above. I encourage you to remove the edits and allow the talk page to be used for this content until it is ready to be posted.

This page is not about Gospel For Asia this is about K P Yohannan. So your question about raising complaint about an organization don't apply here. I had provided supported reference of credible published media. If you can find any reference that corroborate aganist the points raised by me in the controversy section I am always happy to remove it. I had never heared in my life a pastor being consecrated as a Bishop and he then ordain himself as a Metropolitan. If these kind of matters are hidden from the eyes of the public time will not be far that he declares himself as the Pope. There are media reports by the home minister of Kerala stating that Gospel For Asia is a 7 member trust comprising K P Yohannan and his family members. Benedictdilton (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing The Controversy Section on the page Believers Church

Its CSI Bishop who had consecrated the founder of Believers Church as a Bishop and allowed Believers Church which was a Pentacostal Church to be converted as a Episcopal church. This created a lot of controversies in the media and the various fractions inside the CSI church. I don't under stand how this become irrelevant here. Continued one sided reversal of the article will force me to request the moderators for an edit block of the page. Benedictdilton (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

CSI controversies and fractions are better placed on the CSI page if what is said is true. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_South_India and detail the internal CSI controversy on that page. LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no they are not, they are well suited in the article where the reference is all about, please stop from doing these disruptive edits, i'm going to ask for page protection, third opinion and admin interference if you keep doing these actions, you mentioned OR, POV and attack editing, however the controversy section was written in a NPOV, any of these facts which were posted were easily verifiable, and POV in controversy would be "A has been pleaded as guilty because he deserved it", you said that "crores collected for charity..." was not npov, when you could easily make it npov by adding "Yohanna was being investigated for possibly using crores collected for charity..." [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Please note that the original editor agreed with the assertions that you are contending Eduemoni and edited the content to address the concerns stated, which has resulted in a better overall article. Please look at the page history of the Believers Church page. 2. Please let me know if I have made any disruptive edits in the past 24 hours and why you consider them disruptive so I can refrain from making the same mistake again. I have only made a few minor edits (one to correct a date and one for formatting) which I don't think could be considered disruptive, but the only thing I have been doing over the past 24 hours is discussing on talk pages.LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LoveYourNeighbor1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting that an admin check my account specifically vs the suspected accounts. I have been online consistently with much activity on talk pages since registration, and that would be difficult at best if I had multiple accounts. At the very least, I'm requesting permission to talk pages so I can continue some ongoing discussions with editors I was having.LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 4:05 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

No need for a check. Your editing and username show that you are part of the co-ordinated attack at Talk:K. P. Yohannan - whether one user or several working in concert, the end result is the same. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.