User talk:Mike Church

Mike Church was a Wikipedian until August 18, 2004.

Mike: Tell your story

Mike, I know you dislike Wikipedia and probably have pretty much forsworn it. However, I think you might have more effect, if that was ever your goal, if you told your story. There's a lot most people aren't seeing, partly because you're gone. Honestly, User:259 is not helping your case either; most people take him to be a lamer version of you. At least you had well-written, interesting contributions alongside your controversial work; he just gets into arguments about, well, you.

So, tell us: what is your story? What caused you to behave the way you did, what experiences caused you to become so disgusted with Wikipedia, and do you see hope for the project?

Respectfully,

(posted from 152.163.100.73 03:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Question: both contributors to my talk page have 152.163.100.xx IPs; are you related users, or is this a strange coincidence? I'm just curious. I'll take you to be different people, though, because your writing styles are different.

I'm replying to your request at this time. Mike Church 13:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

anonymous comment moved from user page

Mike Church, I love you! You've *gotten* it. It took me a year-and-a-half to realize that this project, unfortunately, is not what it *should* be. But, now that I do understand the sad truth about this site, I have committed myself to restoring this project to its most noble of initial causes. The only way this can be done is either to "convert" or to ban the computer nerds (Guanaco, Blankfaze, Snowspinner, Mike H, Pansy "Danny", et al) who live at this website and collude with one another in order to rule over this place with an iron fist and push their own agenda (all the while making sure that any "anons" [people, like me, who don't officially 'log in'] and newcomers to this site are humiliated and embarassed, if not outright "banned", as to quell any possible dissenting voices against the "liberal" dork clique). Though the clique of nerds likes to pretend it's liberal and, to an extent Socialist, it has fallen victim to the same problem that Marx's Socialism has always practically fallen to: we are not all equals here, though we should be; rather, the "Revenge of the Nerds" lives the high life while all us lowly folk are expected to kiss their asses.

Guanaco is a notorious vandal here. Simply put, he's a troll. He comes here, as you say, for no other reason than to fuck with people and then laugh at them while he walks away innocent and they get accused of every posible "violation" of the site's "standards" from "vandalism" to "making legal threats", from "profanity" to "being annoying". It's a wonder that there's any possible activity to do here that *doesn't* violate *their* (not *our*) "community standards"--"standards" to which those of us not part of Revenge of the Nerds never agreed.

It's pretty unbelievable that this place has an entry on the word "fuck"; has entries on death, murder, suicide; has entries on war and violence, which often contain pictures and videos of bloody corpses, decapitations, and everything else; has entries on felatio and anal sex and drugs, including pictures of clitorises, pictures of various drugs and information on how to purchase them; has entries on gangs and the mafia and the KKK; has entries on legal topics; yet mention drugs, sex, violence, the law, or use the word "fuck" legitimately, are you've broken one of their "codes of conduct"! This place is ridiculous! If I wanted Nazism, I would have become a skinhead. If I wanted to find "factual" information as difficultly and stressfully as possible, with the maximum number of busybodies watching my every move, I would have gone to my local library and let the pain-in-the-ass librarian scold me for not knowing where Encyclopedia Britanica was. I don't come to the Wikipedia because I *enjoy* reading articles when they contain a ton of bias and a larger "police" presence than 9/11!

Keep up the good fight, Mike Church. Spread the word that this place has become irrelevant and that those of us who appreciate *real* information must see to it that a revolution takes place here.152.163.100.6 22:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

La Shawn Barber

Hey Mike, I heard you were wrongly punished by the politically antagonistic editors here at Wikipedia. Currently, (a user) is attempting to set a precedent that his liberal cabal can delete any article that they dislike politically. Please join the fight against (a user)'s cabal and voice your opinion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber. The sooner we end his cabal's reign of terror the sooner we will put an end to politically-motivated oppression. ..-.. 21:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mike left Wikipedia a while ago, but you can probably email him and maybe he'll take up your cause. In any case, it wasn't a "liberal cabal" that opposed him; Mike Church is openly far-left and came under attack mainly from the right. Some of the anti-Church motivations were political, but on the whole they were more complex than that. Post #10 (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.board/browse_thread/thread/ce3f0761804d652e/280226eb04fcb9d7?q=%22truth+about+church%27s+ambition%22&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3D%22truth+about+church%27s+ambition%22%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#280226eb04fcb9d7), by "spirit of night", seems to explain the anti-Church phenom pretty well. But in fact, the original bloggers who started it (October 2003), who were just a couple of xanga/livejournal idiots, came from the left.

Also, there are valid reasons for people to have had reservations about Mr. Church's involvement in Wikipedia, considering the "Ambition war" which historically reflects poorly on both sides. EventHorizon talk 10:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)