User talk:Mark0880

April 2008
Just to let you know, I've reverted your edits to Churches of Christ. I understand what you were trying to do, but you added quite a lot of unreferenced info that appears to be original research. Information in wikipedia articles needs to be verified by reliable secondary sources. In addition, that article has been very controversial lately. I would suggest the best way to make changes in the article is to suggest such changes on the Talk:Churches of Christ page, and try and gain consensus for your changes before making them on the page. There are quite a few editors with different viewpoints editing that page, so getting consensus is a good way to start. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrocket. I added Encyclopedia references and Scriptural references all over the place. Mark0880 (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please discuss your edits before making massive changes to the Churches of Christ page. You are continually adding unsourced material and original research to the page, and are now engaging in an edit war. Please stop reverting the changes, and take the discussion to the Talk:Churches of Christ page. I would also recommend you check out the WP:FIRST and WP:5P pages to learn a bit more about wikipedia before trying to make massive changes. Redrocket (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, please read the material I post. It is WELL documented.  Can you not see the citations?  Please communicate to me whether or not you see the many citations.  Thank you!!!Mark0880 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * RedRocket, furthermore, the sections that I update have very little citation. Mark0880 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have citations, but merely quoting a Bible verse and giving your interpretation of it is not using a reliable secondary source, it's original research and not allowed on wikipedia. You appear to be posting a sermon or religious tract, and that's not what wikipedia is. Please read the wikipedia links I've given you above so you'll better understand how wikipedia works. Good luck. Redrocket (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RedRocket, I just posted material on the talk site. Thank you for helping. I am reviewing the other sites, too. I disagree with your statement: "but merely quoting a Bible verse and giving your interpretation of it is not using a secondary source". This is why the coC site is really lacking in solid information. This is a religious site. The Bible will be the most oft used citation, and that is how it should be. (I would hope you can agree with that.)The Bible can and is its own best interpreter. As long as our postings do not go too far into the issue at hand, and the citations are simply Scripture and easy to understand,they really need to be left there. What are your thoughts? Mark0880 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've taken it to the talk page, that's the best place to start. You need to understand, though, wikipedia is not a religious site. It's an encyclopedia. Biblical interpretations can widely vary, that's why it's best to have your information verified through reliable secondary sources. Good luck over there, I'll check back in at the page later on. Redrocket (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mark, Welcome to the Churches of Christ talk page, which currently has limited editing protection from new and anonimous editors. There are some very passionate people who have been editing the article.  It gets tough when there has been no conversation on the talk page, but everyone insists that things be their own way. Your input can be extremely helpful in modeling the dialog that is needed to begin to move the article forward so that it tells the story of the Churches of Christ in the form of an encyclopedia article that will inform any reader, regardless of their life journey, precisely what the Churches of Christ are about. I know that you will be reading the references to Wikipedia editing that have been suggested.  They are the key to getting the help from those editors who are more concerned about a "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) than they are about content. You will need their help.  They on the other hand need editors who know about content for the articles. That content, to be stable, needs references like a college term paper uses references and footnotes. Otherwise it seems to only be an opinion and not NPOV.  To illustrate what I am talking about, go back in the history of the article to January 2007. Then the article was too long, it had many inacuracies, but it was better documented and had a more NPOV than today.
 * I look forward to the give and take of editing with you, as we seek to improve the article. Welcome to the fray! John Park (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(This is to John, as well.) Ok, sounds good RedRocket. Thank you again for putting the links in your posts. That makes it really easy for me to go to them. Wiki is a little bit disorganized sometimes. I surely understand your concerns regarding citations. I like good citations in articles, too. When it comes to Scripture, we need to allow Scripture to prove itself. Put it up on the witness stand, so to speak. What I mean is this: if I can show you fifteen different passages that say the same exact thing in slightly different wording, that IS our secondary, and tertiary source. I could always site commentaries, and I probably will in some cases. That can get really wordy, though. As long as the citations are simple Scriptural passages, and the context doesn’t get into extremes, then I believe the changes should be left. The sections that I changed hardly had any citations, and needed some “body”. I added a lot of citations and organized the sections a little. We are trying to write an article that shows how MOST churches of Christ worship and how they use Scripture. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I love encyclopedias just like everyone else here. When it comes to the part of the encyclopedia where religion comes up, we’ll see quite a bit of Bible verses. And that’s ok. It’s when we start adding material from outside the Bible that the discussion will become difficult to understand. Cross referencing will be our best tool. Again, thank you for helping me with the links and the ways of Wiki. Mark0880 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Mark. I wanted to explain why I re-edited some of your recent changes but it looks like others got to you first. I want to second their opinion. For Wikipedia, we need unbiased content. It needs to have information but not argument. When you are making your edits its clear that you are biased - Hey, I am too! But when we add content it should be verifiable (not just quoting Scripture) and with a neutral point of view.


 * The problem with quoting scripture is best explained by the fact that there is such a thing as the Church of Christ at all. If Scripture was universally understood in the same way then we wouldnt have differences that prompted denominations. Remember that the readers of Wikipedia do not all believe the same way that you do about what the Bible says. They read the Church of Christ page to learn about that church - not to be told what they believe is wrong. Epecho (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Epecho! Thank you for the responses. Can you give me any specific examples of this bias that is not objective in some of my postings? I'd like to make some comparisons so that I better understand everyone here. You know, I spent a lot of time thinking about biases, and citations, and such today. I want to firstly apologize for posting w/o coming here first. Of course, I was not aware of the rules/regs. (Wiki is a little disorganized) However, that is not an excuse. Maybe a reason, but not an excuse. So to everyone out there who has been perplexed and irritated by my postings, I say: I apologize. It wont happen again. I will take the orthodox methods that are the norm to make suggestions. Thank you!! Mark0880 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark, Give yourself 10 extra points for the boldness of your edits and another 10 points for a big heart with a passion for sharing what you know. I hope you won't worry about "Rules And Regulations" of even being the "perfect editor." While Wikipedia at times seems like a "Free for all" contest, it really is a very disciplined community who take seriously the 5 pillars. The warning at the bottom of each edit page is real: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."  I look forward to the give and take of editing the Churches of Christ Article with you. Hang in there! John Park (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of Bias
Hi Mark,

There was an edit last night in the article on the Restoration movement that illustrates the challenge of Bias. Take a look at how this anonamous editor reworded it to be less hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church. Think of how a member of the Roman catholic church would perceive each of the edits. How would they feel about the Churches of Christ if this section were the only information thay had?

Sample of bias #1

John Park (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is another one from the Churches of Christ page which Epecho reverted.
 * Sample of Bias #2 John Park (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations and other concerns
Mark,
 * I left a reply in my talk, so we do not split the conversation. You'll find help with the mechanics of making citations there.


 * I want to ask you to reread RedRocket's comments on your talk page. Remember that Churches of Christ is an encyclopedia article that may be the only information some people will ever read about the Churches of Christ. What summary of information would such a reader need? What would give that person some basic information that they might remember when a friend says to them, "I have heard that the Churches of Christ are a cult, what do you think?" Then they will be able to explain that it is not so.  RedRocket's observation is right, in that some of what you are contributing is more like a tract than an encyclopedia article. You and I both like the church history and the scholarly detail.  Please give some thought to what is appropriate for this article and what is not.


 * Featured Articles (the top quality articles in wikipedia) are about 30KB in length, they have a clear crisp style.) As it now stands the Churches of Christ is already too long at about 35KB. The writing stinks and not all who edit will use discussion to resolve differences. My question: "If you were going to make this article a featured article, what would you replace with better content? What would you drop because it does not meet Wikipedia standards for NPOV, not being a Blog or a link to promotional sites?" When you begin to understand those questions you'll begin to feel RedRocket's concerns. Good Editing to you, sir! Do it with joy! John Park (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

a reply reminder
Mark, Just a reminder that I like to keep conversations together in the same place. I responded to you message on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnparkw#Using_Scriptures_in_the_Churches_of_Christ_Article. John Park (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of replies to your comments on my talk page. If you are not doing so, you may want to mark that page to "Watch" and the click on "my watchlist" at the upper right when you are signed into wikipedia.  John Park (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Your recent editing history at New Testament shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What admins are and are not
Your multiple references to "seeing what the Sr. admin says" implies that you think that Wikipedia admins are arbiters of what is and is not allowed in articles. You will want to read Administrators to dispel this misconception. As I mentioned elsewhere, disputes over content such as this are preferentially solved by discussions between editors and administrators have exactly the same power to contribute to such discussions as any other editor, yourself included. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Then I should be able to revert as much as anyone else and not get banned. What kind of "research site" is this!? Mark0880 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * I noticed on Requests for adminship, so I can only presume you're illiterate. Reading is such a key skill on Wikipedia. I'd go back to those institutes and get your money back.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to smartmouth. Im doing the best I can while working Mark0880 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
 * WP:CIR Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a requirement in Wikipedia to remain civil. Please adhere to this guidline. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Your RFA page

 * Mark, Admins need to have several thousand edits here and a strong knowledge of policy; regardless of your real world qualifications, there is literally a zero percent chance of a successful RFA. See WP:NOTNOW and WP:RFAADVICE.  I suggest you just ask me to delete that RFA page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty harsh considering the poor quality of so many WP articles. I dont think that's a good idea, yet. Mark0880 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

That doesn't make sense. The quality of many WP articles has nothing to do with the likelihood of success of your RFA. An RFA would essentially be a waste of time for yourself and for others, and I'm 100% sure will be closed minutes after you start it. You've got 96 edits, we probably haven't had a successful RFA in a couple years below 5000 edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What it means is that WP needs editors and assistance. Doing the best I can Mark0880 (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Editors, yes. Administrators with 96 edits, no. That's why I'm suggesting your RFA page be deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

We're looking for quality, not quantity. Mark0880 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Again, that has nothing to do with the chances of you passing an RFA right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully and strongly disagree. Mark0880 (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * I echo the concerns Floquenbeam has raised above, but as you seem to want to go ahead, please try again in transcluding your request (step 11 here). I do however urge you to rethink running for adminship now, and instead consider it in a couple of years -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter if you agree. Based on your non-sequitur responses, and unwillingness to even read the instructions for creating an RFA, I am deleting the page (another admin deleted it earlier, before you recreated it), and preventing its recreation. With respect to User:There'sNoTime's comments to you, you are not going to be an admin for a long while, and asking people to spend time evaluating your suitability when there is no hope of success is simply not fair to them. It isn't fair to you to suggest you file the request correctly, when nothing good can possibly come from it. I look forward to you helping out in ways besides requesting adminship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your consideration! I hope I dont have to go thru the entire page creation again when I try again later. Mark0880 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Is there a way to save the text I typed in? Mark0880 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Yes, I'll post it here, but (a) the page has been protected from recreation, so you'll need to ask an admin to unprotect it when the time comes, (b) that time is probably on the order of several years from now, and (c) when the time does come, a successful RFA will be worded substantially differently than that. Still, I'll copy it for you in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the question you asked me offsite has already been answered by other folks, so I'll point to Floquenbeam's comments with regards to this RfA being far too early. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I just want to chime in on the topic of adminship. Being an administrator isn't really all that special, assuming you're not here to collect hats.  Most of the work done to Wikipedia are done by ordinary editors, such as yourself, while administrators such as There'sNoTime and Floquenbeam work to protect the encyclopedia from malicious intent and disruption.  We are essentially janitors while you are the "news crew" researching topics to create and share, so to speak.— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 21:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination
– This is a self request for admin privileges. I am a well-educated IT Professional with over 400 post-secondary credit hours in 3 US Major colleges, in 3 separate genres. I have done an enormous amount of research and writing and understand scientific methodology well. I enjoy editing and writing, and have been researching many topics on my own since graduation. I have posted some of my class notes and research at www.reasonwithme.weebly.com Mark0880 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Editing, fact-checking, posting articles, and citation research


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have made contributions in the theology arena. These have been well researched and cited.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I perceive many users to be inflexible with source citations w/o considering the background of such. I deal with by asking questions and learning together to grow myself and others.

Mentorship
Hi Mark, to cut away from the above - I hadn't realised your RfA page was deleted. I strongly recommend you do not run right now. Apologies for the mixed message. I would like to offer to mentor you - we can go through some things you'd like to learn how to do on Wikipedia, and I can introduce you to lots of places you can be very helpful without having to become an administrator. Would this be of interest to you? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure! Sounds great!  Appreciate the offer.  Mark0880 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Awesome I've started us off at User talk:There'sNoTime/Mark0880  -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:William Nix


A tag has been placed on Draft:William Nix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.amazon.com/God-Us-Revised-Expanded-Bible/dp/0802428827. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no info on William Nix author/co-author so trying to create the page. the paragraph comes from his book, not Amazon. Not sure how to proceed. Mark0880 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * I've had a look, and it looks like he doesn't pass our notability guideline, especially as an academic. Geisler is certainly notable; Nix is not. Not every author has an article on Wikipedia - we only select the most significant ones. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, that link doesnt open. Any assistance is appreciated. Mark0880 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Sorry. fixed now. StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Im not sure which part of that page applies to a co-author of such an important volume in scientific literature. Can you help? Thank you Mark0880 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Well, the only possibility is that The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (WP:NACADEMIC): (a) I don't think the book is all that important: it appears to be a compendium of standard knowledge rather than anything ground-breaking. (b) It does appear that Nix is standing in Geisler's shadow - he is very much a co-author. (c) In any case, we don't have the reliable independent sources that demonstrate the book's - or Nix's - impact. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A General Introduction is arguably the best volume we have today for an intermediate to senior level understanding of canonicity. It's used around the globe in theology and history classrooms. It's been around since the 60's too. There are others, but none as comprehensive. I sort of see what ur saying about co authoring though. Tough call  Mark0880 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * At issue is the fact that the draft was copied word-for-word from somewhere else. That's why it was declined and nominated for deletion. When you edit Wikipedia, please look at the bottom of the page. It says above the "save changes" button that "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." It is dishonest and illegal to take someone else's copyright words and present them as your own and release that content under CC-BY-SA. This behavior of yours is indicative of the larger problem. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

But that's what I was trying to get help for. That blurb bio is copied out of the book, onto Amazon. Amazon is not the author of the bio. The bio is in the book. Not sure how to handle that Mark0880 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * It doesn't matter. I found the content on Amazon. If the content actually came from the book, then you stole from the author of the book, not Amazon. The point is that you stole content and that content is copyrighted. Even if you had copied words from public domain (like Shakespeare or Chaucer) you'd still have to attribute the source. Please explain why you don't understand what plagiarism is. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I really need you to watch your mouth with the ad homs. You've been quite attacking today and I dont appreciate that. Indicative of something. Hmmmmmm Mark0880 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Please report me to WP:ANI. Be sure you spell my name right. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK Chris, I suggest you disengage quickly. StAnselm (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ive lost a LOT of hope in the quest for knowledge through wikipedia today. It's too bad so much critical information is being kept from the public. I am really feeling disappointed/sad. Mark0880 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

I am a little late in this discussion, but some of the above comments do not seem all that helpful. Mark0880, the issue at heart is that Wikipedia can not publish copyrighted material without violating several international laws. We can cite such material, attempt to paraphrase some of its contents, or give brief quotations. We can not reproduce it in full. When attempting to add material to any article: 1) cite your source 2) use your own words.

I am not certain whether Nix is notable enough for his own article, but that is largely irrelevant here. He appears to be still alive, so he probably holds copyright to all his published works. Also any article on a still living person is covered by the policy Biographies of living persons, which requires us to not publish potentially inaccurate or defamatory material. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This might be rough for you but I'm trying to help
Read the following while assuming good faith -- From my end, I am calmly explaining the situation so you understand what is going on because your behavior indicates that do not.

Wikipedia is not a "research site," it is an tertiary source encyclopedia. There's a difference. All we do is summarize mainstream reliable sources. We actually forbid original research. "Do not plagiarize" is taught in high school and expected everywhere beyond that. In academia, presenting copied text as your own (even if you cite the source you copied it from) results in failure, expulsion, and censure -- it's no different here (especially because we're liable to face legal trouble for allowing copyright violations). Someone with four post-secondary degrees should know that (also, we no longer regard claimed credentials as relevant for a reason). "Stole" is an appropriate way to describe an act of plagiarism.

The problem with the William Nix draft was that it is plagiarism, regardless of from it came from. The correct way to write new articles is:
 * Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that you can find that are specifically about the subject but still unaffiliated with and independent of it. This would exclude a book by the subject.
 * Summarize those sources, including citations after after each summary.
 * Paraphrase those summaries into one coherent piece, combining overlapping material.

It is only after this point that it should be expanded with due weight from affiliated sources. Our standard for what is "critical" is what receives in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.

The problem isn't the site, it's been your approach. Yes, was way out of line for this comment but two wrongs don't make a right. He has agreed to back off, which is the most that can be realistically expected when both parties are in the wrong. His frustration is understandable, as a user who has claimed to have a lot of education needs to have plagiarism spelled out for them, even after he left a message explaining "For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material".

Now, the best way to go about this is to agree to likewise back off from Chris (as Chris has agreed to back off from you), and remember to cite, summarize, and paraphrase from now on (you might also want to read WP:My first article). Other paths lead to lots of drama and most of them would not turn out well for you (I've got almost a decade of daily activity, there's not much I haven't seen here by this point). As long as plagiarism never becomes an issue again and you and Chris leave each other alone, this incident will be buried in time. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

In college bios were different. We could copy those out of the book if we needed them, as long as we cited them. Doing the best I can here!! Need a little help and mercy!! Mark0880 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * That's rather unusual (collegiate work is supposed to teach you to write and research for yourself), but even so, this isn't collegiate writing: it's writing for publication. Yes, Wikipedia's not a peer-reviewed publication, but it's still being published in a manner than most people with Internet access can find it, and thus copying text without permission for a Wikipedia article is a much much bigger deal than copying text for a paper that only a professor or graduate assistant will see.  Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The papers we wrote had to be our paraphrasing with limited quotes. Bios weren't as I recall, in that same category, since I cannot paraphrase what a bio says. Mark0880 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

I wonder if this means the WP article on Norman L Geisler is paraphrased too? If so, how do I know it's accurate? Mark0880 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * Were it not paraphrased, we would have nuked it from orbit. The paraphrased material cites the source supports it.  We stick to published sources that someone else should have access to, even if not everyone does. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

lol! I guess so! I like the idea of using the biography creation page. I'll try that next time. Thank you for the help. I really appreciate it. Mark0880 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Just stumbled across this. Here's how I'd go about writing this man's bio for Wiki. First I'd try to find his own home-page on google (meaning probably whatever his university says about him - they usually have brief bios of staff). Then some bios from the inside flaps of books he's published (or the equivalent for e-books). Then organise it: his full name, when and where born, current position, education, publications. I think that should really be about all that's needed. Doesn't have to be long, he's not one of the giants of his branch of scholarship just yet, give him time :) PiCo (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input here. Im going to check with my professors today and will reply back later. Plz bear with me PiCo Mark0880 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * PiCo just checked with my Professor, now the President of the school. Just like I thought, "Hey Mark, It is acceptable to cut and paste bios.  I’ve never heard that they violate copyright laws.  I would copy and cite it."  NEVER have I heard in all my 12 years of college that we paraphrase bios.  Mark0880 (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880


 * Mark0880 I think the reason for this Wiki policy is a fear of lawsuits - your average theology professor probably isn't a problem, but others (like, e.g., politicians, or media people) might be. Better to play it safe. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson Hope this doesn't come across harsh just checked with my Professor, now the President of the school.  Just like I thought, "Hey Mark, It is acceptable to cut and paste bios.  I’ve never heard that they violate copyright laws.  I would copy and cite it."  NEVER have I heard in all my 12 years of college that we paraphrase bios. WP seems incredibly confused within itself.  Why is that? Mark0880
 * I have no idea what kind of college experience you have had or who these authorities you talked to are, but their opinions are completely irrelevant. As we have been trying to inform you, whatever academic standards you or they think apply, well, simply don't.  Read the copyright policies that are relevant to Wikipedia and you will see why your contributions are challenged.  I suggest starting with the basic copyright policy and then the policy on copyright violations. These two policies are legal policies that are part of the site's Terms of Use.  You have already made a binding agreement to follow those policies as part of creating your account.  Violating these policies can, and often does, lead to sanctions up to and including site bans. These are not policies that are subject to change by editors as they have been put into place by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the site's owners.  As the owners of Wikipedia, the WMF has the authority to determine under what conditions they allow other people to use their resources.  They have determined that these policies are necessary to protect themselves from intellectual property litigation.  We as editors have the choice of either following those policies or not being allowed to contribute. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Eggishorn APA and MLA are standardized world-wide formats, not opinions. WP does things a little differently than the rest of the world and that's certainly ok!  Learning the differences as I go... I see the owner of WP warns students away from using WP as a source, and most universities do not accept WP's citations and articles.  That's sad.  Mark0880 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

You serious?
You actually bothered to report Chris to ANI?!? What the hell man, get a grip! 14.0.175.239 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * HEY! Inappropriate language and tone!  Watch it! This is not a thunderdome style forum where we mistreat one another. Mark0880 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Talkpages
Please see WP:INDENT. If you indent your comments in a talkpage-discussion correctly, it´s easier to follow the discussion and clearer who is talking to whom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Test Mark0880 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TestMark0880 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Test Mark0880 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Noticeboard Discussions
Please do not try to discuss an issue at one noticeboard that is already pending at another noticeboard. In particular, please do not try to transfer a discussion away from the correct noticeboard only because the case is going against you. You wrote, in your second filing at WP:DRN: "Tried posting in that forum but not really getting many responses from seasoned pros." You are getting a lot of comments, regardless of whether you consider them seasoned pros. Trying to move a discussion is forum shopping and is deprecated. Please do not try to open a discussion at DRN a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The 2nd one was an error b/c I couldnt find the first one. Mark0880 (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * No. The second one was an error because I had collapsed the first one, which is always done with requests that are closed as inappropriately filed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I would very strongly advise against submitting a Request for Adminship if you have difficulty with filing noticeboard requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Arent we supposed to assume good faith on WP? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Im not sensing that here today. Mark0880 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880--Mark0880 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith" is not an excuse to wave away all critiques from your fellow (and in 's case, very experienced) editors. In particular, new editors who adopt a practice of responding to well-meaning advice with combative responses such as the above have rarely found participating in this community rewarding.  I would urge you, for your own sake, to take some time to read discussions and watch editing practices before continuing to make edits and discussion postings.  Having a better handle on community norms nearly always makes the resumption of active editing more effective.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (talk) please note that above, I said I apologize for the mistake. I am new to some of the posting and coding in WP.  That's what I meant by please view this by assuming good faith.  Im not intentionally trying to reopen a case.  It was an error.  Im trying to learn as I go here.  Mark0880 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. The statement, "I'm not sensing that here today," simply did not appear to be a plea for tolerance of (completely understandable) new user coding mistakes.  That said, errors coding and in posting to various noticeboards, as well as simply figuring out which noticeboard to use, are expected in new users and not generally worth comment.  The reason why I felt it was necessary to comment is that I have seen a certain amount of defensiveness and frustration in multiple places during your interactions with more-established users in your short time here.  This is concerning for two reasons: One, every user started as a new user and when one has issues it should be incumbent on somebody to assist in helping the newer person to understand what is happening.  Two: new users that have immediate frustrations don't remain, and any online community that does not have a regular influx of new users is doomed.  So, both for your sake and for my self-interest, I think my earlier advice to slow down and read more before returning to highly active participation is still apropos. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Eggishorn Thank you sir. I am a little frustrated b/c Im getting the same smartmouth comments and put-downs as I did in '08. That's why I stopped coming.  But Im trying again, and the same thing is happening: "You're an illiterate idiot and no, you wont be allowed to touch anything here".  It's unbelievable to me the arrogance and conceitedness.  Please bear with me.  Im doing the best I can to get people to set aside the ad homs and examine the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mark880 - Please remember to sign your posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no ad hominems and no smartmouth comments. I certainly don't see any comment that can reasonably be paraphrased as an allegation of illiteracy or idiocy.  I do see that accusing other editors of being arrogant and conceited isn't helpful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Where are you looking for them? Would examples be helpful?  --Mark0880 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * I now did find one highly insulting comment, for which the editor was appropriately censured. You have a choice.  You can move on, or you can decide to use it as an excuse for having an unpleasant attitude.  I don't care if there have been other such comments.  In any case, mostly you are being given reasonable advice and seem to be trying to have an unpleasant attitude about it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, aside from the matter of whether you are being confrontational, the policy of assume good faith does not mean to assume that an inexperienced editor is ready to be an administrator, and coding errors really can reflect on whether you know the arcane details that are part of the burden of being an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon you seem to constantly misinterpret my stance and my intention. Maybe it's better to ask how Im thinking or feeling than assuming.  Mark0880 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
 * User:Mark0880 - What is your stance and intention concerning a Request for Administration? What is your stance and intention about Wikipedia in general?  If you are constantly misinterpreted, sometimes this means that your statements do not convey your intention.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

January 2020
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

are you addressing me or the people that have been viciously attacking me? Mark0880 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)mark0880