User talk:Marcperkel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Sarg (Talk)

[edit] Church of Reality

Marc, I wanted to just say a couple things about the VfD on your new articles, just to clarify a few things.

Basically, nobody is saying that you don't have the status you claim or that you haven't worked hard on this. What we are saying is that this isn't yet appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for things that are already well-established, it is not a place for new things, be they religions, terms, what-have-you. In looking over your page, your website, and your blog, I don't see any good evidence that at the moment your religion is currently well-known enough to merit inclusion. Some day it may very well be, and I encourage you to continue your work. A good sign of when you have "made it" is when somebody besides yourself spontaneously wants to write an article about your religion and can write such an article. Until then, this not only has what we would call questionable "notability", but also counts as original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. I'm not Christian or religious at all -- I was in fact very active in the Bay Area freethought community when I lived in the area a few years ago, we probably know a lot of the same people. This certainly isn't a question of necessarily disagreeing with your philosophy or wanting to stamp it out.

This vote isn't a judgment about your efforts, your beliefs, or your goals. It is just that Wikipedia is not a repository for all information -- it is an attempt at an encyclopedia. I agree it contains a lot of things that I don't personally find very encyclopedic (a million articles on Pokémon) but such is the way things work around here.

I encourage you to spend a little more time looking around, seeing what we are about, and hopefully contribute to articles! If your other articles don't survive the VfD process, you might consider creating versions of them in your own user space, which does not have to be encyclopedic. For example, if you created the article at User:Marcperkel/Church of Reality, that would be just fine.

I hope this experience doesn't turn you off to Wikipedia entirely, it is really a neat project on the whole. Please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any other questions. --Fastfission 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would very much aid in our assessing of whether it is "big enough" if you would post some links to evidence of this. Google search counts by themselves are generally not that convincing (at least the ones you have posted), but if you have some more concrete evidence that could definitely change at least my opinion one way or the other. If is up to the author of an article to establish notability. --Fastfission 16:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome and please respect Wikipedia

Mark, welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be having a difficult time with some of your edits. I suspect this may come from a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. Apparently you have created a new religion called the "Church of Reality", and seemingly have come to Wikipedia to promote it. But please understand that Wikipedia is not the place for that (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox). There are many other places on the web and elsewhere for promoting a cause, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Please respect that. Paul August ☎ 20:31, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faith-based

Hi I just wanted to make sure you knew about the3 revert rule (WP:3RR). I see you've made a comment on the talk page it might be a good idea to contact the others on their talk pages to make sure they have seen it.Geni 20:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three-revert rule violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please Don't delete messages on your talk page; and please respond

Mark, please don't delete messages on your talk page. It is helpful if everyone can see what discussions have occurred, and are occurring. It would also be helpful if you would take the time to respond to some of the messages people have posted here. It might be possible to resolve some of the problems you've been having if we could discuss them. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and we aspire to make decisions, editorial and otherwise, through consensus. That takes discussion. If you are unwilling to enter into a discussion, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Please respond. Paul August ☎ 13:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attitude

For fuck's sake, Marc, mellow out. Your vote on the VfD for "The God Who Wasn't There" - I agree with you, okay? But your attitude is harsh and strident. Calm the fuck down, okay? A hysterically angry atheist can be just as annoying as a hysterically angry religionist. Saying that Wikipedia is "nothing more than a bunch of Christian censors who blacklist everything that proves that Christ was a FRAUD" - as a nonchristian and fervent Wikipedia user, I'm offended. DS 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Please do not add your own personal commentary to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. It comes offf being a complete non sequitur. If you have concerns you would like to discuss, please add them to the talk page or the appropriate other location. DreamGuy 23:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also, per your comments on User talk:Tony Sidaway, I would like to point out that it is KNOWINGLY false information about copyright claims that is prohibited, and nobody in the history of this country has been prosecuted for it as far as I can tell. Please tone done your hysteria level. Also, Assume good faith. DreamGuy 23:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Alter Copyright Information Page

Please don't alter the copyright information page. It contains the information people need to know that it is legitimate. You shouldn't take down the page and then claim it violates copyrights. Please remove your false claim of possible infringment. If you are really interested then contact the copyright holder and find out for yourself.--Marcperkel 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't alter any "copyright information page", nor did I take down any page. I really have no idea what you are talking about.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 07:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Sorry!

I'd like to apologize to you for allowing my emotions to get the best of me in the AoSV VfD; that was uncalled for. As a gesture of goodwill, I created a userpage for you. It's very plain, but I hope you like it.

Also, I'd like to point out that the changes I made on the "God Who Wasn't There" article really don't qualify as vandalism. Think of it more as trimming the fat: for instance, yes, some of the people who were interviewed for the documentary were notable, but not all the information that was put in was necessary. Okay? DS 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Reality

Hi Marc. If you want to re-create an article which was deleted by the community, you need to use our undeletion page first if you don't want it to just get deleted again. --Fastfission 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Marc. Someone else actually did the job of deleting it, but the article was deleted because you re-created the article after the community had voted to delete it. Deleted pages in this fashion can only be restored by administrators if there is community consensus to do it. If you think that a Church of Reality article should exist, you should use our deletion review page first. The article was deleted last June because it did not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Hope that clears things up. It is nothing personal against you, your church, or your beliefs (most of which I share). --Fastfission 02:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image for Deletion Image:Cor.jpg

[edit] Image:Cor.jpg has been listed for deletion

--RoySmith 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing closed AfD discussion

Hi. I assume you saw the two places on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of reality discussion page where it said, in bright red letters, Please do not modify it. Ignoring those instructions was inappropriate behavior. You seem to have been around here long enough to understand how things work, so I am disappointed that you elected to modify the page in spite of the instructions not to do so. Please understand that this is a collaborative project to develop an encyclopedia, not a public soapbox from which to push your own personal agenda. --RoySmith 03:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• And hey, you can tell your "followers" to stop vandalizing my talk page. I—an individual—am not the reason your page was deleted. I gave you clear instructions on how to get it restored, and directed you to the pages which contain relevant policy information which you'll need to contend with. This kind of activity will not gain you any sympathy, and takes me only a moment to undo. As an aside, notability and membership of organizations is not determined by a roll call at Wikipedia; in fact, even if your "Church" contains upwards of thirty members it still wouldn't meet our notability guidelines. --Fastfission 13:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Spamming my talk page via a mailing list is vandalism in my book. So is screwing around with my talk page. Keep both up and I'll have you banned from here. --Fastfission 18:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian censorship

I'm tired of hearing your complaints of some kind of Christian conspiracy here so I'm giving you Criticism of Christianity and Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible to read before you complain anymore about censorship. Wikipedia strives for NPOV which means tolerating the religious views of others no matter how ridiculous they may be. Please stop accusing atheists like me of being christian censors, I'm sure you can imagine how insulting it is. --TheMidnighters 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Deletion Review comment

On Deletion Review, you wrote "... I sent a link to this page out to all my non-existent members to ask them to vote to undelete. I pointed hundreds of people at this page. I'm hoping that I have at least convinced everyone that the Church of Reality has more than one member."

If that was your intent, I must point out that you failed. The Wikipedia community is functionally unable to differentiate between such users and Wikipedia:sockpuppets. We have only your word that they are not creations of your own mind. I know that sounds hostile but it is a simple statement of fact. The only identity any editor has on Wikipedia is his/her edit history. You can neither prove nor disprove anything you allege about your life outside of Wikipedia.

This is an inherent problem for wikis who must balance the principle of open-editing with the principle of verifiability. You might be interested in the section on meatpuppets, a neologism coined to describe such new users who are recruited only to participate in a controversial debate on a wiki.

We have had serious problems in the past with users attempting to bias our decision-making fraudulently. We (and every other serious wiki I know of) have a long-standing tradition that comments by sockpuppets and suspiciously new users are steeply discounted. Verified facts are welcomed from anyone but unsupported opinions are generally ignored. Active recruitment of such users is generally perceived as at attempt to game the system and will tend to create a prejudice against your cause.

I think that this particular debate is a closed issue but wanted to point you in the right direction to better understand the Wikipedia policies and philosophy on original research and verifiability. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• The only problem with this point of view is, he was only trying to prove that the CoR has more than one member, which was done effectively, even if the only reason that these people join is to make a point in the debate. The "meatpuppet" argument is invalid here, and the term is quite frankly as insulting as calling an atheist a "Christian censor." Also, Wikipedia does indeed have a method of determining that entries come from separate IP addresses, which really ought to show multiple individuals. I must say, this debate does not encourage me to actively join this site. 7:03, 02 December 2005 - so far, not a member.

[edit] Deletion review

Hi Marcperkel. I wonder if I can talk about the Deletion Review that you requested. The thing with the way Wikipedia works is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This means, at its most basic that, although the Del Review may have the appearance of a vote, it is not in fact a discussion first and foremost. So, when someone (probably an admin like me) comes to deal with determining the outcome of the review, they will almost certainly be able to see through the weight of numbers you are directing at the page to the actual discussion underlying it. That discussion is usually held among established Wikipedians or at least among those who are not participating in the discussion with a clear agenda. This means that, no matter if you pile up the 'votes' in your favour they will, unless they are clearly debating the principle in good-faith and good-humour be discounted and achieve nothing. In fact, they will achieve something: they will achieve this event being remembered by those of us who participated and remembering who instigated it. It will not generate and good-will toward you or your organisation. You would help your cause very much more by recognising that the consensus, at this time, is against you, politely withdrawing the Deletion Review and trying again when you have achieved what might commonly be known as notability and verifiability from reliable sources. (Incidentally, those edits by people claiming to be in the church are not reliable sources in the sense of the above link, since literally anyone could claim such a thing — without good, reliable sources for the claims they don't mean much). I hope that helps. -Splash^talk 18:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not censorship. We want to hear what you have to say. You've said everything available, it's been considered by the community and, for the time being, has not been found to warrant the restoration of the article. Now that it's all been said, don't you think the best thing to do is take a step back and try again once you've something new to offer? We'll be pleased to hear from you when you do. In the meantime, see if there are any other articles we already have in your area of expertise that you can help out with (not by adding the deleted work to, of course). I mean what I said above; encouraging animosity toward you is unlikely to help in the long run — imagine that you were dealing with real people in that manner, would it work? Of course, you are dealing with real people, even though it's only pixels on screens. -Splash^talk 18:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the community as I (and Rossami) described it above were unequivocal in keeping the article deleted. Now, we can continue this to-and-fro, if you like (though I have to step out to see a friend for a few hours), but the result isn't going to change. Generally, continuing a to-and-fro in such a circumstance just causes frustration, particularly for the person who feels the harder-done-by. Let's drop it, ok, and call truce? Click the "random page" button on the top-left section of your screen, and you'll be taken to lots of articles that need attention where you will be very welcome to edit. -Splash^talk 18:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think you have a better case than yoism? That was deleted.Geni 19:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You have removed the Church of Reality discussion. I guess when the votes don't go in your favor you stop voting?--Marcperkel 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

(I see Rossami and Splash have already tried to explain this above, though I'm willing to try it again.)

Wikipedia does not vote. Not on deletion review, not on articles for deletion, nowhere. We make decisions through consensus among Wikipedia editors. I hadn't commented on the review, nor on the AFD; I haven't even looked at the article, and have no interest either way on whether it should be on Wikipedia. What I did see was an overwhelming consensus among established Wikipedia editors that the article should be or remain deleted, a horde of meatpuppets vandalizing User talk:Fastfission at your instigation, the closure of the review by Splash (one of the most neutral and experienced editors I know), and your reposting of it, headed by a demand not to remove it again. (And putting that demand in large, red, all-capitalized letters besides.) —Cryptic (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not make threats

You left the following at User talk:Splash, Don't delete the votes on the Church of Reality or I will point the membership at your talk page. Please understand that threats of any kind are not tolerated on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more details. If you continue to make threats you will be blocked or banned. --RoySmith 18:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for a week

Marc,

I have blocked you for a week for being disruptive. The use of meatpuppets is not only frowned upon but it is actually harming your case as it shows a disrespect for the principles of Wikipedia. A week will enable the proper WP:VFU process to run its course without any further interference from you. I note this is not the first time you have been banned. I also note since you returned to Wikipedia on 27 November, you have made no edits to articles other than your vanity piece.

You are still free to edit this page or email me if you have anything constructive to say. — Dunc|☺ 19:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dunc - screw you!--Marcperkel 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't made that remark, because I was about to offer to un-block your account. But unless you agree to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, I think I'll just let you stew in your own juice.

If you need advice on how to contribute to Wikipedia within the rules, please ask me. I helped formulate them. Uncle Ed 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How Afd Works

Fastfission is not relevent to your campaign to get your article on WP. Many administrators take care of carrying out the consensus of Afd, which in the case of Church of Reality was to delete. He just happened to be the Admin who carried that out. Whether he made an inaccurate statement about the Church of Reality's membership is not germane. As far as "votes" Afd is not voting, although it looks like it, and some of the same terminology is used. It is actually Opinions (of editors and admins of WP), with commentary and reasoning. That being the case, a newly registered editor of WP who has made no valid contributions, or very few contributions, to WP is considered a biased opinion and they are generally disregarded. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you still have questions or issues you would like resolved, and I will help in any way I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• And honestly, I wasn't the one who deleted it. I was the one who listed it for consideration of deletion, primarily on the grounds that it was previously decided to have been deleted. Another admin decided to do the actual deleting, on procedural grounds — re-creation of articles previously deleted with essentially the same content is grounds for instantaneous deletion. And for the record, whether your "Church" has one member or two dozen members is immaterial here — notability is not based on sheer numbers and none of the arguments against you were ever hinged on such metrics. I've run groups with over 800 members that weren't notable enough for Wikipedia articles. --Fastfission 01:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Also, while you are at it, please read our NPOV policy, as well as our policy on user etiquette, if you plan on participating here. There is no "censorship" on Wikipedia — we have articles on every notable faith, belief system, and ideology known to man. 90% of the people who cry "censorship" are people who don't follow the rules and don't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog. If you want to have things go smoothly, take the time to figure out what we are about and how things work here. Just a suggestion. --Fastfission 01:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Your claim of no censorship is bullshit as long as the Church of Reality remains banned from Wikipedida based on what you claim that the CoR has only one member. --Marcperkel 02:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • It is not based on my claim. Bugging me about it will get you nothing. I don't know who you are used to dealing with but being a pest will get you nothing around here. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, do you realize that? And for the record, it is not a "false statement" if it says "seems to be". Seeming is not necessarily the same thing as being, as one who apparently "believes in reality" should know. Especially when it is meant to make a point. --Fastfission 03:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Here is all I will give you: I acknowledge that I do not have an actual count as to the membership of your self-described religion, and did not intend the statement that to me it seemed to contain a single member to necessarily indicate that I had such knowledge. It meant only that the web presence and promotion of the group seemed to be dominated solely by a single individual — Marc Perkel. If this is a false statement, so be it, but it is what it seems to be to me. I will not and cannot "remove the statement" because deletion pages are not to be modified. In any event it changes nothing about the question of notability. If that doesn't satisfy you, that's really too bad. Now, I have other things to attend to, if you don't mind. --Fastfission 04:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • There is no rule against removing text from own's own user page, no. Feel free to look over our user page policy if you are curious about such things and want to have some authority when you claim to know the rules. And anyway, as you have seen, nothing is really deleted here, it is just put into the article history. Now do you have anything else of a substantive matter or are you just looking for some conversation? --Fastfission 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article about you

See Marc Perkel. Uncle Ed 19:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Marc Perkel has been deleted.

[edit] Image:Cor.jpg listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Reality entry

I wish to create a CoR entry which satisfies WP's notability and reference requirements before suggesting that the article be unprotected. At the moment, the work in progress may be found in my sandbox. -FrostyBytes 10:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey I just e-mailed the church, since you're the creator I bet you deal with it or something. Don't worry, we'll get it up! It doesn't look like a parody to me, simply an outlet for reasonable realists (aka, Atheists/Agnostics) to worship in, much like Humanism. Btw, if the membership is so low, does that mean the one who asked the Q to Dawkins at that University was you? Tyciol 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)