User talk:Sapienz

Reply to the following message:

Child sex offender

Frank Houston co-founder of Hillsongs church is a known child sex offender. It is obvious from your contributions that you support Hillsongs or are a member. Are you denying that this happened? Wikipedia articles are to be neutral and have all sides shown. That the co founder of the church had sex with a boy is something cannot be just covered up. If this was an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses, would you think that it was fair if the co founder was a pedophile and yet members saw that information as not relevant? I have reverted it. Please re-consider your deletion of the link and think of the poor teenage boy who was abused by this monster. Would you agree that he was a sick man? Sapienz 12:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

1. Frank Houston did not found Hillsong Church, he founded the church (Sydney CLC) that is now under Brian Houstons leadership. 2. He may have been a "known child sex offender" (in your words), but there was never any criminal conviction. So you cannot add that he was a Convicted pedophile to an article as it is a false claim, and does not fit an opening paragraph as it has a large amount of opinion and bias. 3. Yes I am a member of Hillsong church, what's that got to do with it. Is it because I am Pentecostal? Is it besuase of some sort of dislike or hatred you have towards my church? 4. I am not denying that it did happen, but I will point out that you are blowing it out of proportion by making un-verified statements and adding person opinion to what is meant to be a neutral and factual page. 5. Pedophilic acts to not equate to "sex with a boy", whether it happened or not, it cannot be proved so don't claim it here. Save it for an internet blog or chat room. 6. I have no hatred towards Jehovah's Witnesses, and would never go out of my way to "abuse" and "bully" them with any kind of info. Information and references are to build an article, not to turn it into a personal attack. 7. I will think of the boy you claimed was abused, it is a sad thing to happen if it did. I do not condone that kind of behaviour. 8. Whether he was a "sick man" or not, Wikipedia articles must not reflect personal opinions but must contain verified references and statements.

Please do not hesitate to ask any questions about this or writing Wikipedia artciles, I am more than happy to help. The most important thing here is that these articles are reflective of factual information and not of personal opinion.

Thank you for your time.Tatie2189 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. if you continue to make changes that are not discussed with and approved by other edits, you will be officialy warned for vandalism, per WP:VAN.

FYI

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adultery-and-the-Rapture/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.5.72 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTY09c0hZ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.5.72 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick stop vandelising the Potter's House related articles, honestly enough is enough. As for your personal attacks... See if I care.Darrenss (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Disruption of the development of the encyclopaedia by the use of sockpuppets is strictly forbidden. If you continue to do so you will find your editing privileges removed. —Moondyne 08:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Your ip sockpuppets have been blocked also. When your block expires, please use your registered account for editing only.

You know the reasons for the block: edit warring by adding external links which are nothing more that fansites; adding links into the see also section which are already in the article text. All of this is really petty stuff and you would do much better to spend your time improving the articles rather that insisting on your version without compromise. You may appeal the block by following the instructions above. —Moondyne 00:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]