Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 13 January 2007

Hello Raspor! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! dave souza, talk 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

• /Archive 01 - Mostly discussion relating to the articles on intelligent design.

I have twice made the decision now to stay out of ID/Creation/Evolution debates on Misplaced Pages because of the lack of adequate moderation and the larger numbers of anti-Creation/ID people here who shout you down, regardless of the strength of your argument (I make an exception for things like voting for deletion, etc., and discussions on user talk pages).

So I decided not to get involved in this debate. However, I will make a few observations.

• Mr Christopher said that he is not aware of any "bad" questions. However, one thing that you need to realise, Raspor, is that, despite their protestations otherwise, you are not allowed to question evolution. Evolution is f-a-c-t. Anybody who questions evolution is ignorant, stupid, or worse. Of course they usually won't admit to this (although Richard Dawkins has), but this is the message that comes through loud and clear over and over.
• There are rules or guidelines on what you are allowed to discuss on Misplaced Pages. Article talk pages, for example, are only for discussing the article, not the merits or otherwise of creation/ID/evolution/etc. That same restriction does not apply to user talk pages, but user talk pages are still under some restrictions (you can't use user pages as your personal blogs, for example). There's probably nothing wrong with discussing whether ID is science here on your talk page if it is related to Misplaced Pages articles (as your discussion clearly is), but of course nobody is obliged to discuss it with you if they don't want to.
• Congratulations, Raspor, on exposing their inconsistency. You have made a very good point (I haven't checked your claims for myself, but nobody is disagreeing) that the use or avoidance of the word "theory" is done inconsistently (I've long suspected this, but never spent the effort investigating). And their sudden refusal to discuss things with you any more is quite telling.
• Articles are supposed to be written from a Neutral Point of View, which I don't doubt all the editors with whom you've been interacting agree with, and try to do. The problem is that they see their Point of View as neutral (often with the excuse that it is the majority POV), and are passionate about imposing that supposedly "neutral" POV. Recent edits in the ID article and the Noah's Ark article both show that (although admittedly both have been reversed, the latter on the grounds that it was a large addition that hadn't previously been discussed). But also revealing is the number of times that the arguments for putting a particular wording are based on their own POVs. For example, Mr Christopher said just above that to "call it a 'theory' in the opening sentence ... would be misleading the reader and giving undue weight to a minority/pseudoscientific viewpoint. In short, describing ID as a theory would be violating more than one Wiki policy (and also contradicts reality)" (my emphases). So part of his rationale for not using the word "theory" is based on his (and majority) POV! Similarly, A Guy has provided a list of reasons that ID is not science, reasons that presumably he considers to be proven facts or self-evidently true, but in fact the reasons are all disputed and are thus merely a POV (albeit a widely-held one).

In summary, Raspor, it is a waste of time arguing with this lot; their minds are made up and their zeal for imposing their POV (although they don't recognise it as such) is unbounded, and they have the strength of numbers (although not the strength of argument). If you want to take them on, you need to (a) have plenty of time, (b) do plenty of research, and (c) not give them any cause to dismiss you, such as poor spelling and grammar, swearing, poor logic, name-calling, etc. If you give them no excuses, you'll probably still not convince them, but at least they'll have to try harder to find reasons to ignore your arguments. Unfortunately, my main problem is (a), and your main problem is (c). Philip J. Rayment 02:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your above assessment (at least in the most important, third part) does not take into account the concept of undue weight. I have seen it expounded on many times but still see errors made as far as considering it goes. Intelligent design is rejected, as you say, as pseudoscience, by essentially all of the academic community. This being the case, the policy of undue weight, by necessity, requires the article to address each of the given opinions on the origin of life with due weight. Because of the issues of both undue weight policy and larger consensus as a whole, in order to be fair to the readers the individual articles on ideas that do not have mainstream academic support (for example, dianetics, "hollow earth", or extraterrestrials, all of which may be supposed but with the exception of "hollow earth", are difficult to prove or disprove) must be addressed as such- and this is without even straying into the territory of whether Intelligent Design is science or philosophy. As such, I think that many of the points that you have raised above are somewhat naive in many of the assumptions that they make. --HassourZain 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

but hassour the point here is not whether ID is science or not. it is whether i can dicuss that on my user page and whether i am being persecuted. i specifically asked if i could discuss that. no on said no. then they participated. and then when i came up with a point that shattered their logic they started to call me troll. now please tell me. was i treated correctly here? did i insult? did i twist words. i even asked FM for permission and still *** I *** recieved the "troll" insult. do you agree? raspor 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up with the situation in detail due to real-life demands. What did they say was an insult, what point did you bring up and who called you troll? --HassourZain 15:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I've known you since I first came to WP and I'll put it to you simply: You're not helping matters. Rants like your's only fan the flames. If you can't contribute constructively in regards to Raspor, at please do not make the situation worse by encouraging him. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

obvious bobjob

yes Phil. i started this section off as 'is ID science' and specifically asked whether this was allowed. many of them jumped in and discusseed this with me. there is an consistentcy a la phrenonlogy etc. if it were not right to discuss that subject then why didnt they tell me and then why were they participating with. if FM (who i think is the boss here) would have said no i would not do aything. then when i finally asked the alien question and they did not have a good answer thats when they started shouting troll. any one readin that paragrapch can easily see their tactics raspor 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing disagreeing with you as "jumping on you". In the above sections I can see other editors addressing your points, but maybe you're being a little sensitive to disagreement. To their defense, many of the things that you have done and are still doing (raising lots of small questions using a confrontive tone) are hallmarks of trolls' behavior. If you don't like being called that, it's very easy to rephrase a confrontive question into a question that isn't confrontive that people won't mind answering. --HassourZain 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

which question did i ask in confrontive tone? raspor 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is "boss" here. Some people are sysops, with the power to ban users, etc., and some might think that they are boss, but neither makes them "boss". As far as I'm aware, FeloniousMonk is not a sysop, and I don't believe that he considers himself boss. Philip J. Rayment 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has been a sysop since 13 August 2005. PJR is correct, there are no "bosses" here, unless you count Jimbo, and FM does not consider himself one to the best of my knowledge. There are, however, more or less knowledgable people, about both subjects and Wikipdedia, and within Misplaced Pages about technical things and about policies and guidelines. Everyone has different areas of expertise. :-) KillerChihuahua 11:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

and to the best of my remembrance i only wanted phil and hassour to come here. you are not welcome. is trolling when someone keeps hauting your talk page after repeated requests by the owner for that person to go away? would you consider yourself a troll by that definition?

he acts like he is the boss raspor 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

hassour, read thru it if you have time

""""so you disagree with MC who says that we should not use the word theory if it is acceptable. thats what i am not understanding. isnt the theory that the earth is 6000 years old falsifiable? and is not theory that aliens seeded the earth falsifiable? raspor 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)"""

this is why they called me a troll. they can never answer this. but that is irrelevant. the point is i asked permission. they went on MY talk page and interchanged with me then called ME a TROLL. again i was being extremely polite. does not matter. when then first called me a VANDAL i had be so, so humble and polite. they insult without cause that is the fact here. raspor 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to the question of whether those things would be falsifiable, consider this test: is there any evidence that could reasonably be understood to prove that the contrary is true? As to the second part, they didn't call you a troll just for that comment, they called you a troll because of the confrontive way that you have edited since you started editing here. If you would try to reasonably discuss with other people like I'm discussing here with you, nobody at all would have a problem with your edits. In that sense it's not what you're asking but how you ask it that bothers others. --HassourZain 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

i dont agree with your def of falsify. but that is not important. the point is that within the last couple of days i have tried to be polite etc. and still get insutled dont you agree with that? i asked for PERMISSION. how more subservient can i be?. and remember they were the first ones to start the insult was. i was new. i changed something and they called in vandalism. where is my apology. and they should not use the word TROLL. that is inflaming. this is a bobjob. it is so obvious. raspor 15:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your trying to be polite, but given some of the things you have done, it is worth understanding that people don't forget things that they don't like easily. The things that you should concern yourself with are not trying to prove if ID or Evolution is right or wrong, or if anything is scientifically valid- doing that is original research, and not what Misplaced Pages is for- but rather talking to other users if it is being proportionally presented on its pages, and that sort of thing, which is what Misplaced Pages is for. I think that that basic assumption may be what some of the problems have stemmed from. --HassourZain 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

so i am supposed to forget that they mercillesly jumped on a newbie but they can go on with their bad behaviour?

i was trying to establish why the word 'theory' was used differently on different pages. look at the discussion. i was not trying to prove ID . i think thats what they are so paranoid about. there is no proving here. just editing. why dont they see that??

i apologized for MY behaviour. should they not apologize for their bad behavior?? raspor 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said above, their behavior was defensive, but these articles, being politically sensitive, are constantly attacked and trolled, so you have to understand that from their perspective, when you very first started editing, they supposed that that was what you came here to do. Now, if you'd be interested in knowing how I would phrase a question that you had about inconsistencies by editors, just tell me the essence of your question and I'll tell you how I might think about phrasing it in a way that wouldn't make another editor think all that. That's what I'm here to help you with, to make it so other editors aren't bothered by the edits you make. Like I said, the way you say something is sometimes the most important thing in dealing with other people. --HassourZain 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry hass, i disagree. they started attacking me first. they have never apologized. they are not ethical in my opinion. this really isnt worth it. i am wasting my time. i could be doing better things. appreciate your attempts at goodness. you will be rewarded. but this place is almost evil. i prob should try to avoid. raspor 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> You got off to an unfortunate start with ID on 22 December, raspor, as you deleted the previous post and so your edit was reverted. However, after that mistake was sorted out at Permission the discussion resumed in what seems to me a pretty civil way, with editors asking you to "please read" archives at links they provided, "If you have some new points which have not been hashed out already, please feel free to bring them up" and to "Please provide a reliable source" for assertions. If you think that's attacking you, you've led a very pampered life. Your responses lacked that politeness, and you talked of bias and inaccuracy without any supporting citations, as well as introducing off-topic demands for opinions. That's what I'd call trolling, though since your motives are known only to yourself there's no way of knowing whether or not you're a troll. Please try to read that discussion without starting with the perception that you're a victim, then read the various policies and guidelines you've been pointed to. It takes a while to get to grips with them, but they're the rules we all have to go by here – including 3RR: if I made four reverts within 24 hours I'm sure I'd be blocked for it. .. dave souza, talk 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

i did not make 4 reverts. and i was called a vandal long before the revert incindece. look thru the records. this is all an attempt to make someone who wants to make the ID article neutral look bad. thats it. you have chased away all neutral editors. anyone who reads the article can see it is a bobjob so it does not really matter. why are you trolling on my user page ???17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, as I have detailed here (now in your archive), you did, technically at least, make four reverts. Philip J. Rayment 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry that's the way you're taking it. I'll say no more. .. dave souza, talk 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"That's what I'd call trolling" but its not 'trolling' the AIDs simply will use any unethical tactic to get their POV in this article. it wont change. if cant contribute in a logical way to my page. stay off of it raspor 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a list and summary/commentary of your first 8 edits here. Mr Christopher 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont you have anyting better to do with your time??? raspor 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

raspor, I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of archiving much of your talk page. Much of the discussion has been moved to /Archive 01. This is your archive, I can't stress that enough, so please don't understand this as an attempt to silence you. No, I created the archive specifically so you can continue to talk to HassourZain and Philip J. Rayment (and anyone else when it pleases you). I believe I left most of your ongoing discussion intact.

I'm hoping that by 'wiping the slate clean', as it were, we can start anew. I would ask the other contributors to respect your wishes in leaving you alone here. In time, perhaps, we can contribute to Misplaced Pages together. -- Ec5618 23:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

When I saw that you'd archived someone else's talk page, I was concerned that this would not help matters. But when I saw your explanation above, and your motives, I think this is actually a good idea. In the same spirit, a couple of replies that I'd like to make to HassourZain and FeloniousMonk I will do on their talk pages. Philip J. Rayment 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

yes phil, i read your discussion about undue weight. very good. that was my point in my discussion about 'theory' ID cannot be considered a theory but 'phrenology' and so many other really wacky concepts can. why???

these people have a giant ax to grind. i cannot help it is bitternes towards God. really. i mean i there were just a-theists. in the sense they do not have beliefs they would not act this way. i know people who are a-theists. they dont seem too bothered by religion etc. they really ignore it all. but these here seem to have a hatred towards theism. does the discovery instititue have a right to want non-materialism? isnt this a free country. i would have to consider my self an agnostic. but if someones believes in jesus, buddha whateever i could care less.

the bias in this article is amazing as you have shown. i am sure most are atheists. but their bitterness and hatred has made them blind.

there is tremendous evidence for an existence of a creator or 'God' to squelch that evidence is an injustice. to impose atheism on people is just as bad as imposing christianity or islam on people.

life and the universe show tremendous signs of design. that is irrefutable. to oppress that point of view is wrong.

raspor 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to ask you to refrain from making such allegations about the personal spiritual beliefs of other users. It is absolutely out of line--it violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I would venture to say that equating atheism with "bitterness and hatred" constitutes a personal attack. -- Merope 13:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

are you saying there are no bitter and hatefull atheists? i know of bitter and hatefull christians also. and jews. and islams. i believe that almost all of the prominent editors of this article are atheists. is that OK? should there not be balance?? raspor 14:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that calling Misplaced Pages editors "atheists" because they are in a disagreement with you is absolutely out of line. It is a violation of civility to characterize the spiritual beliefs of other users. Compounding the characterization by saying they are hateful and embittered is a personal attack. -- Merope 14:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

calling a person an atheist is wrong? there are many atheists that i know and have read about that i admire. do you feel it is wrong to be an atheist? raspor 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

by the way. i was talking to phil not you. why are you trolling me? this is not a public page raspor 14:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trolling you. You are involved in a dispute which came to the attention of several administrators. In my role as an administrator, I attempted to mediate this dispute; I felt that I should, once again, point out the policies you were violating and link you to them, in hopes that you might read them and participate as a member of our community. And this is a public page; it is part of the Misplaced Pages project. Anyone has the right to edit it. It is not wrong to call someone an atheist if he or she has disclosed that information to you. Negatively characterizing your opposition, however, is wrong. Making assumptions about other users' personal beliefs is wrong. Calling an editor who is only trying to help you a troll: wrong again. -- Merope 14:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

you mediated this dispute? can i hear more about that. OK this is public page. negative characterizing my opposition is wrong???????????????? but it is OK for my oppostion to negatively characterize me??????????? PLEASE EXPLAIN. i truly want to understand how this works

<<<<<<<<<<<<Making assumptions about other users' personal beliefs is wrong.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

you are not serious. have you read the way the anti-IDers make assumptions?????????????

raspor 14:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to mediate this dispute. I asked you to please re-read the policies and to stop making personal attacks. I was largely unsuccessful, I see. It is not okay for your opposition to characterize you; however, if you engage in personal attacks, make assumptions about other users, refuse to read our policies, persistently show that you have no understanding of WP:NPOV, and continually attempt to engage users in an argument over a subject, then it's not characterization to say that you are behaving in a manner inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies. I do not agree that calling you a troll was the correct thing to do; rather, I would say that you are engaging in troll-like behavior. And I am completely serious about making assumptions about other users' beliefs. I have not read anything like what you might be referring to, though there is a difference between saying "Proponents of intelligent design believe this..." and "The users who disagree with me are blinded by bitterness and hatred and are all atheists." One makes a statement (or assumption, if you will) about what people who subscribe to a certain belief system actually believe; the other makes an assumption about what specific editors on this project believe. You have called a number of editors here bitter and hateful atheists. That is the difference. -- Merope 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"The users who disagree with me are blinded by bitterness and hatred and are all atheists." when in the world did i say that???

and again why are you not scolding my oppostion for making negative comments about me? you dont see this. sure i make mistakes. but they continually make dispariging comments about me with impunity. there really seems to be this prejudice against those who do not fully become devotees of darwinism. to doubt it is sacrilege. you dont see that here?

can i say DARWINISM IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY? really can i? that is considered ***DISRUPTION*** ooohhh he doubted darwinism. we have to punish him raspor 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

and I want to add that in talking in the discussion page any description i have of other editors are my opinions and not necessarily factual. obviously i do not **know** anyone here. everything i say is based on assumption and guess. and to clarify it seems to me most of my oppostion are atheists and to me in my perception many seem angry, bitter and hateful. they actions show this. to write page after page after page of seeminly biased critism of me seems hateful. i wouldnt waste my time on it. i want to discuss now to make the articles less biased. and as soon as i try that i get a blast of insults. if i am every able to edit my home page i want to put that disclaimer in it raspor 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

did you tell 'guy' he shouldnt tell people to 'fuck off'? raspor 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, it continues. Raspor, I agree that it is not a good idea to make assumptions about other people's beliefs. I know that, because far too often people have made assumptions about me (are you reading this, Merope?). But as I've said to you before, two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. Just because they do it to you is not reason to do it in return to them. Also, if you want Merope (or anyone) to be fair and chastise others for things they called you, then you should clearly point out to him just where others have done this. The best way to do this is to link to the edit history showing where they actually made the edit doing that. Merope can't be expected to go hunting for it himself. Here's one example: (which, if you look at the link in that edit, indicates that Raspor is a Christian, which he has specifically denied). (By the way, I'm not suggesting action be taken here, as the editor did retract the claim when the error was pointed out to him. It is simply one example of many such false claims made by "the other side".) Here's another, in which I was accused of thinking that my opponents are morons, or this one, in which creationists were referred to as "nuts". You know, I've often had this sort of vilification, and as far as I can remember, I've never had an administrator jump in to my defence. Now maybe that's just because I don't complain about it, I don't know (although I did lodge a request for moderation once, with regard to an anticreationist butchering articles, and I patiently waited, and waited, and waited, and no moderation came. Meanwhile, the said anti-creationists put one of the articles he butchered up for deletion, and was successful, partly on the votes of people who openly voted according to their anticreationist bias. (Documented here.) Meanwhile, I kept waiting, but moderation never happened. Anyway, getting back to the present, in contrast to the first two of those three I linked to above, Raspor was generalising, not speaking of specific individuals. Philip J. Rayment 16:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I've not had any real interaction with you, and so I don't believe I've made any assumptions about you or your beliefs. I do not think it is right for others to have characterized your beliefs and opinions thus. If this sort of thing happens again, I'd be happy to step in and issue the same kind of warning. I agree that Raspor was generalizing, but his generalization was "everyone who edits the article in opposition to my view". Lumping all editors together and calling them hateful is, one, an unfair generalization, and two, a gross violation of AGF. A person's spiritual beliefs shouldn't be speculated on, especially in such a way as to negatively characterize them. It just really grates my cheese when someone says that because a set of people doesn't agree with him, those people must have x sort of religious beliefs. And, for the record, I'm female. -- Merope 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philip, again, by giving Raspor tips for how to properly rant here ("The best way to do this is to link to the edit history showing where they actually made the edit doing that.") you're not helping the situation. You'll find that the community does not have much patience for editors who continue fan flames as opposed to those constructive seeking to resolve issues, as has HassourZain here. Please do not continue to egg Raspor on to greater disruption here. FeloniousMonk 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

phil, its almost comical. they spend pages and hours linking to things that i said and when you advise me to do 'as they do' they say they wont have much patience with you.

"everyone who edits the article in opposition to my view". another complete misquote!!. unbelieveable.

and mrope said this "A person's spiritual beliefs shouldn't be speculated on," i dont know how many times a was referred to as a bible thumper or some other derogatroy term till i finally told them i am not even a theist. this is almost comic lack of consistency.

totally unbelievable !!! raspor

unfairness

well FM scolded geo becuz he encouraged me to go to some website and recruit people yet no one scolded him for egging guy on when guy told me to 'fuck off' does this seem balanced??? raspor 15:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)