User talk:Tanlipkee

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Tanlipkee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smartse for being so welcoming. Sorry for the late response as I was exploring and familiarizing myself with how wikipedia works. Didn't really pay too much attention to my use talk page until recently. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed

I have reported you to the conflict of interest noticeboard here : Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#New_Creation_Church_.28Singapore.29 you are welcome to comment in the discussion. Smartse (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smartse, for highlighting the matter for my attention. I have taken the time to read through the relevant policies and guidelines and I endeavor to abide by them.Tanlipkee (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Having read through the policies and guidelines, I am glad to say that I fully subscribe to and support wikipedia's philosophy and ideals. I look forward to being able to contribute to the cause of wikipedia by being a competent editor. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Tan Lip Kee, I came across this on the net:

http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/117/Half_a_million_dollar_paid_to_pastor_-_some_discussions

Can you confirm if there is a conflict of interest?

And btw, Tanlipkee, pls stop deleting 203.43.58.221's stuff. He is right to bring up critic's comments about Joseph Prince's teachings. Let the readers decide for themselves...

Ahnan (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my COI status has been appropriately disclosed in:

(i) the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Creation_Church#Criticisms_by_Rien_Van_de_Kraats_on_Joseph_Prince); and

(ii) my user page Tanlipkee.

I am also fully aware of and am conscientiously complying with wikipedia's policies and guidelines on COI WP:COI and neutrality WP:NEUTRAL. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Disputes aside the article on NCC would really be improved by some photos - If you could take some it would be great. Let me know if you need a hand uploading them. Smartse (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smartse for the offer to help. New Creation Church does not have its own building, so there will not be any photo of a church building. I will see if I can get some photos featuring the congregation. Thanks!Tanlipkee (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Creation and AGF

First, thank you for your support and for the information about the AsiaOne papers. Perhaps Ahnan will also thank you. I appreciate that you have felt under attack even in the short time I have been involved in the article. I am trying to get everyone to "play nicely". May I suggest, without sounding too much like your mother, that you have now made your point and that as long as there are no more shots from Ahnan, who has agreed on his talk page that he will change, there be no more rebuttals from you? No one, reading the Talk page, will be under any illusions in the matter. This is not to take sides, but to ask everyone to move on. Thanks for your continuing co-operation and quiet sense. // BL \\ (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BL. The truth be told, I would very much like to focus my time and effort in helping with the actual editorial work, rather than responding to the attacks and defending myself. I will heed your advice and not post further comments on the talk page. Hopefully, Ahnan will keep to his word and will cease his accusations against me. Your efforts to keep the peace and move things forward are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much! Tanlipkee (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Canvassing

While I appreciate your interest in getting many eyes on the New Creation Church article, writing to specific editors to encourage them to respond may be viewed as "canvassing" which is generally frowned upon. Could you reassure us that all six of the names you approached have previously commented on the article and have taken positons on more than just one side of a debate? May we know how you selected the recipients of your request (which was made openly, though mentioning your COI status has an inate suggestion as to the way in which you would expect them to comment) if they have not already been involved? While multiple votes cannot change policy, and it is policy on sources with which we are currently struggling, they can, if inappropriately one-sided, raise the level of drama, and to no ultimate good purpose. Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting the concern with regard to "canvassing". I was not aware that there is such a thing. But I think it makes sense.

In response to your query: the method I used to pick the 6 names was actually a rather crude and simple one. I simply went through the edit history page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Creation_Church&action=history) and picked someone:

(i) who has a user name, i.e. who is not anonymous;

(ii) who has, in the past few months, contributed to the article on New Creation or left me a note on my talk page, i.e. shown interest in the subject matter; and

(iii) whose contribution history indicates that he or she is an experienced editor, i.e. not a green horn like myself.

I did not bother to check their views or opinions on NCC or the pastor. In fact, among the 6 names I selected, two of them seemed a little unfriendly to me: Smartse had reported me to the COIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee#You_are_being_discussed), and Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary had sent me a note to warn me about COI and NPOV (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanlipkee#June_2009).

In any case, I have no reason to believe that the 6 editors are biased. I believe them to be neutral and independent. If there are any reasons to believe otherwise, please highlight them to me, and I will withdraw my request and ask them not to get involved. Thank you for bringing this matter up for our attention, and for giving me a chance to explain and clarify things.Tanlipkee (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Your method for choosing "eyes" is a reasonable one. I am pleased that all have previously contributed in some way to the article. In order to avoid drama, it might be advisable to announce your intention on the Talk page of the article so that no one working on it is surprised. This is not a required action, but merely a polite one. Thanks again. // BL \\ (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have made the announcement on the article's Talk page as advised.Tanlipkee (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Both you and User:Ahnan have done something supportive for the article in general in the past 24 hours, and not just to support your own point of view. I think this is a huge step forward. (Tanlipkee, last evening you pointed out that My Paper/AsiaOne was a traditional news source and thus likely quite an acceptable source for Ahnan's note about the size of the outcry. Ahnan noted that I had deleted something, probably in error, that was supported by the NCC website's text. ) Now, if only we can convince User:Event24 to come to the Talk page first, we will be a long way ahead. Thank you. // BL \\ (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We share a common goal - i.e. to present to the readers an article that meets the editorial requirements of wikipedia. I too hope that User:Event24 will heed our advice and not make too many new-comer mistakes. Yes, there is still a long way ahead. Thanks for the valuable guidance and all the hard work. Tanlipkee (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1% Factor: New Creation Church

I did laugh when I saw what you had deleted. You were perfectly right to do so, and I am sure you know that I never intended the calculation to appear in the article. I, too, have to learn to be careful what I write on the talk page, it would seem. (I am delayed in my goals for this week. I will be back at the article in a day or so.) Keep up the good work. // BL \\ (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You keep up the good work too. I really appreciate your diligence, impartiality and patience in helping to mediate the discussions and to improve the article on New Creation Church. Thank you for setting a good example for new editors like myself to follow. I've learned much from you. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3in1kopitiam

I am not a member of the 3in1kopitiam forum, and I am not interested in the discussions that are taking place there. Nevertheless, I was told that there have been some discussions about me in the 3in1kopitiam forum, and that there is even a suggestion that involves my employer. I wish to state clearly that my involvement in Wikipedia editing is a purely private matter. It has nothing to do with my employer. Please do not get my employer involved. Thank you. Tanlipkee (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

3in1kopitiam is a free forum. Anyone can say what they like or they don't like. If you want to refute anyone there, feel free to post your rebuttals there. Unlike NCC members, we don't anyhow remove postings of others. We let the forumers' postings speak for themselves. Ahnan (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopedia, with online forums. Wikipedia is NOT a platform where anything goes (please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX). Wikipedia has attained its level of reputation and credibility because unlike many forum sites and blog sites, it does not allow participants to freely post unsubstantiated views, wild accusations and libelous claims. Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines where editing and behavoral standards are concerned. With regard to editing, neutrality and verifiability are the unshakable principles. According to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, any unsourced, unreliable and libelous material can and should in fact be deleted or revised by a responsible Wikipedia editor. Please read WP:NEUTRAL, WP:V, WP:BLP.Tanlipkee (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I was going to freely post unsubstantiated views and wild accusations on wiki? Are you implying that I'm doing this so as to undermine my credibility on wiki and hence, remove all Prince's critics from wiki? Unlike your NCC fellas hiding under names and telling everyone that you guys are "neutral", I don't. I'm not a hypocrite and from day one, I've already made known my stand on Prince. I tried to be honest about it. You made a complaint to me about 3in1kopitiam and I replied that 3in1kopitiam is a free forum for people to express their views freely. I wasn't talking about wiki. And I've told you that if you felt your "reputation" has been "slighted" in 3in1kopitiam forum, feel free to go in there and defend yourself. Just like in the court of laws, people in there can also make accusations and defend themselves with facts and evidence. Rest of the forumers will decide who is right and who is wrong. Ahnan (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only concerned with the content of the Wikipedia article on NCC. And with regard to that, I suppose we are agreed that the decisions should be made by the Wikipedia editors and administrators. The fact is I did not complain about your forum. I only decided to post a message here because I learned that you have considered contacting my employer about my involvement with Wikipedia, so I thought I should remind you not to overstep the boundary, and to leave my employer out of the picture. I reiterate that I am not interested at all in participating in any discussion in your forum.Tanlipkee (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Tanlipkee (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NCC

I think you're getting shafted on the NCC article. There are extremists on both sides but your edits have been, I think, very even handed. The "preaching style" section and Dutch blog particularly burns me. It's as if someone added a section to the Catholic Church article saying "their robes look ridiculous and the wine isn't REALLY the blood of Christ" citing a blog as the source. You don't go attacking other peoples' religious beliefs! Hang in there. Rees11 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the situation is not funny at base, but Rees11's comparison made me laugh. I have started a process and will post as I have more information. // BL \\ (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore meetup invitation

Singapore Meetup

Meetup 6

Status: Planning
Date: 4 September 2012

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d • e

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Tuesday evening (4 September). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 6. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

October 2012 Singapore meetup invitation

Singapore Meetup

Meetup 7

Status: Confirmed
Date: Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Time: 7:30 pm
Place: Singapore Hackerspace

Please indicate your interest on the meetup page.

v • d • e

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup on Wednesday the 31st of October. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore 7. Hope you can make it. JVbot (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Singapore)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Creation Church Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Creation Church Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]