User talk:Hheejj

Sunday Adelaja
You're obviously very connected to the articles topic and therefore lack a Neutral Point of View. However being neutral to all topics is essential to wikipedia. Therefore I suggest you either keep a neutral stance, even if editing about a topic so close to your heart, or fine some other articles to edit. thanks, noclador (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are obviously not neutral as well. I happen to have knowledge in this topic and I can tell that the Adelaja Watch website is completely full of lies and false rumors. That's why it does not belong in Wikipedia, and I think links to it should be removed wherever it can be found in Wikipedia.
 * I am very neutral on this topic. The only thing I see is that you wish to remove a link critical of Adelaja because you say it is full of lies. Is it? Does anyone not associated with Adelaja say so too??? Also to edit to make the article more pro-Adelaja and then trying to get the only critical link of Adelaja out of the article - you seem to be in a conflict of interest here. Therefore: The link stays until an external neutral source says it is "full of lies". noclador (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * no cleanup needed. unless you show some respectable sources, who state that what you say is actually true. You say this is an organization going after all Christians - well if that is true I am sure major Western publication have reported about them and bring these sources and we will do an article about them. As long as it is only you who claims this: the link stays. noclador (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you write something positive about Sunday Adelaja in this article or add some links with positive information, I will believe you more to be neutral. Concerning this organization, I think this organization is quite small and unknown to almost all Christians; the only reason I found out about them is because of the link here. Look at this website (same organization behind it): http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ . You will find almost all famous Christian preachers there criticized in different ways (just search for a name if you know any pastor for a megachurch). Is it enough facts to remove the link?
 * Forget the link. The link is in the full context of the article irrelevant. I saw that you added quite many good things about the activity of the Church. See - this is much better than trying to remove the link, because people trust wikipedia much more than any external link. And I have a suggestion for you: can you take and upload photos of the Church? the soup kitchen? ecc? It would help to illustrate the articles. Also: should we change the name of the Church in the articles to "The Embassy of the Blessed Kingdom of God for All Nations"? or is it ok to keep the old name of the church? noclador (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I can provide with photos. I don't know exactly how to upload new photos or to change photos on articles here on Wikipedia. The photo of Sunday Adelaja is not so good (you can almost not see him on that picture). Could you somehow show me or give a link to how to upload and put photos in articles in Wikipedia correctly?
 * Yes, you can change the name. "The Embassy of the Blessed Kingdom of God for All Nations" is the full name of the church, "Embassy of God" is the short version of the name, most commonly used when talking about the church.

If "Embassy of God" is the most commonly used name, then wiki policy is to use this one, to make it easier for people to find the article. To upload photos follow this link - choose: "It is entirely my own work" (which it must be!) and then just fill in all the fields in the upload form (specifically: Date of Work, Description and Licensing) A suitable license (under which I also published all my 800+ graphics and photos) is "Multi-License with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL", because it allows the use of the image on all wiki-projects in all languages. Please also do the following: every time you leave a comment on a talk page, at the end of the comment sign with four tiles ~, which will change to your name and the time of your comment when you save the comment. thanks. noclador (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, at the top of this article it's written "This article has multiple issues" and there are four points below. Point 1: It seems like the article has enough verification for the information it contains now. Verifications has been added, and I think information without verification has been removed. Point 2: I think it has become quite neutral. It looks like opinions has been removed and now it's information based on different verifications. Point 3: I don't think the article is too long, it's actually not long at all. If more verifiable information is found, I think this article could become better even if it becomes longer. Point 4: The edits by persons with conflict of interest, both for and against, seems to be reverted and the information left is more and more factual with verification. Noclador, please look over it and see if you can remove that this article has multiple issues, or at least some of these points. Thank you! I will also look for more verifiable information and if I find I will try to enrich this article, and I'm sure you and others will edit what I add to keep it as neutral as possible.Hheejj (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on Point 3 and 1 - although there is never to much references :-) I removed that point (and also 3) now. as for 2 - let us wait for some days - if there are no complaints I believe we can remove that one too. as for point 4 - we need to leave that. It is a warning to other editors to look out for suspicious edits as the editor in question (a PR writer for the Embassy of God) was for the last time active just a month ago! And such PR interference in wikipedia is unacceptable - therefore point 4 will remain for months (and only after that time, when now new instances of blatant PR writing have happened will it be removed). But: overall good work Hheejj :-) noclador (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * kick the witchcraft stuff out :-) noclador (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephania Soup Kitchen
regarding your photo: File:Stephania 1.JPG - good that you uploaded it! However if you upload photos with people, who are not public figures and from whom you do not have the consent to upload their photo, make the face not recognizable! I did it now with your photo Stephania 1, but remember in the future, that maybe some people don't want to be on wikipedia, or some people are ashamed to be seen in a soup kitchen, or... and to make sure we are safe from legal action, we normally pixelate photos like this. thanks for your understanding, noclador (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand. Thank you for your help. Hheejj (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at File:Stephania 1.JPG now, you will see that your originally uploaded image has already been deleted "del original (non-anonymized) version, for BLP concerns)". Wikipedia is fast with such things. noclador (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)