Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raspor

message: This quote I found interesting when I read it.  All of the sudden, out of the blue, raspor's english became perfect and he was quite lucid.
I guess one thing I am uncomfortable with is the ethnocentrism of the article. For instance Adnan Oktar has been a proponent of ID for a similar length of time as the Amercian counterparts. He is a proponent in Turkey and in Arabic countries. As you know concepts arise many times simultaneous in different areas. The bias I see in this article is implying that ID is an Amercan Right Wing Christian created concept. It simply is not. There does seem to be a bias againt the Arabic cultures in American elete intellectualism. For instance the 'Dark Ages'. There is little mention as to how much scientific development was going on in the Arabic countries at that time. If one would compare the number of Arabic 'proponents' of ID to the American I really think the numbers would be comparable. But the article seems to imply it is an Amercian phenomenon. Also in France there is an ID 'movement' And the term 'movement' is loaded. I did not seem mention of the evolution 'movement' or the Darwinist 'movement' in those articles. There was not even a criticism section in the Darwinist section.
OK at least at bottom line can we mention the Arabic ID 'movement' in the article to give it more balance?
raspor 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Borat is funny.  Raspor is not.  Orangemarlin 07:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on your perspective.  For instance, I bet raspor's sides are going to hurt for weeks from all the laughing he has been doing since he showed up here.  Mr Christopher 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is: There might be several different people using the raspor account.--Filll 18:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: interesting raspors quotes

message: At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor#Raspor's comments an (out of place) query by Ec5618 resulted in a brief discussion and raspor requesting "go to my personal page. and i will answer there". The extensive discussion at User talk:Raspor#astrology is not science??? why?? appears to be an exercise in frustration. It is my understanding that individual tuition is generally out of place at Wikipedia, and in my opinion the response given at User talk:Candorwien#whale fossils? was much more appropriate. However it did not prevent further requests at User talk:Candorwien#Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures? and User talk:Candorwien#you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks. These examples suggest that raspor is beyond education, though of course the behaviour is what might be expected from an ingenious troll intent on disruption. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at some of Raspor's edit, I don't think that he is a troll. He does have some views not widely shared on this project, and he doesn't know how to make them heard in a neutral fashion. I'd be glad to volunteer to help him understand some of these things: I think that some of his confrontive messages have been appropriate, and that he may not have a complete understanding of many of the rules, etc. here. --HassourZain 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Educating raspor

message: It's possible that I missed it somewhere, but this is the first time I've ever participated in one of these things.  What's the difference between a user who certifies this process and one that endorses it?  Thanks.  Orangemarlin 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure question 

message: some deleted something i said becuz they said it was a personal attack . but obviously i do not have the same rights as the darwinists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 January 2007
:I promised myself that I'd never respond to you, because you refuse to play along.  Let's review what you just did here?  We asked you to quit creating section titles to ask a question.  You still do it.  We asked you to use indents.  You don't.  We asked you to sign your posts.  Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.  I'm not even going into your insulting lack of spelling skills.  "Becuz"?  What's that?  But where is the personal attack?  You are a troll, and we are presenting evidence to your behavior.  You have been disruptive, and we're presenting further evidence.  Do you expect that we're going to say "You're such a nice guy, and we dislike your POV, so we're mean to you."  No, we're pointing out what you have done, we have made many suggestions on how to be a better person on here, and in each case, you ignore us.  So, I don't read anything on here is a personal attack, other than pointing out how personally offensive you have been, how disrespectful you have been to fellow editors and to Wikipedia, and how everyone has extended an olive branch with suggestions on how to be a better editor.  You are blind to what you are, and it is getting boring to read your disrespectful commentary.  Orangemarlin 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raspor, I do wish you would realize that inanities and insults, and trying to distract users from the point will never allow you to get your way. --HassourZain 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If by "mob rule" you mean "not allowing single users to have the run of an article, when consensus is clearly against what they are trying to do", then that's correct. Wikipedia is about consensus. --HassourZain 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said on the subpage of the talk page on intelligent design- Raspor, I understand that this is probably a perplexing process and that you are not as experienced as many of the users here that are taking a position different to your own. Their problem is not with you speaking up and being heard, their problem is the fact that the way you are making yourself heard in articles surrounding Intelligent Design does not conform to the neutral point of view policy. I'm more than willing to help you make your points in a neutral manner on the article, it's just that you have been very confrontive to some other users, which makes the editing process here at Wikipedia very difficult to work in. If there'a any way that I can help you, please shoot me a message on my talk page and we'll talk more about this there. --HassourZain 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  are personal attacks allowed on this page? 

message: Just to be clear, I never said and do not believe that Raspor has been 'miraculously cured'.  In fact, I stated that I still believe he should be censured.-Psychohistorian 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Apparently you missed the point that I "'endorse'" your view, that I wasn't speaking of you, I was speaking of User:HassourZain and User:Philip J. Rayment, both of whom think he's been abused or something, and that I thought your issues were completely and utterly valid.  But thanks for misunderstanding what I wrote, then being rude back.  It's user:Orangemarlin in case you forgot who I was.  Orangemarlin 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Getting your name wrong was a simple mistake for which I now apologize.  I'm sorry about that.-Psychohistorian 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orangemelon's reply

message: All the extreme anti-IDers think i am guilty. i reverted a revision. it was my first time. i didnt even know what i did was considered reverting
this is just a game where any tactic will be used to squish the pro-ID view.
have fun kids.
i have a life
raspor 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have better things to do with my time. 

message: I have tried to engage him in productive discussions, but he has just been attacking frantically. For example, when we were discussing why the supernatural cannot be part of science, he refused to give his own definition of the supernatural, rejected dictionary definitions of the supernatural and my own operational definition. He continued to jeer and then engage in personal slurs and snide remarks. Some creationists and ID supporters are rational and can be productive contributors. I fear that raspor is not rational and cannot be productive.--Filll 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehabilitation of raspor

message: :discussion moved from RfC page
Geo, it is difficult to take your "outsider view" seriously when you are on raspor's talk page encouraging him to take this conflict offsite.  You curiously advised raspor:
"Maybe you should pay a visit to Free Republic, and mention your treatment here Geo. 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find this very disconcerting.--Filll 15:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Geo, could you provide us a diff of raspor's edit you claim was properly documented ("The edit was properly documented")?  And also its relevance to the article on intelligent design.  That would help us to make informed conclusions regarding your "outsiders view".  Thanks again and cheers!  Mr Christopher 15:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view by Geo.plrd